URBAN VISION PARTNERSHIP LTD
East Midlands Aggregate Working Party
Annual Monitoring Report 2016 - incorporating data from January – December 2016 (revised Jan 2018)
For further information on this document and the East Midlands Aggregates Working Party, please contact:
Chairman Lonek Wojtulewicz Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment Leicestershire County Council County Hall Glenfield LE3 8RA Tel: 0116 305 7040 [email protected]
Secretary Carolyn Williams Group Leader: Minerals & Waste Planning Unit Urban Vision Partnership Ltd Civic Centre Chorley Road Swinton Salford M27 5AS Tel: 0161 604 7746 [email protected]
The statistics and statements contained in this report are based on information from a large number of third party sources and are compiled to an appropriate level of accuracy and verification. Readers should use corroborative data before making major decisions based on this information. Published by Urban Vision Partnership Ltd on behalf of the East Midlands Aggregates Working Party. This publication is also available electronically free of charge on www.communities.gov.uk and www.urbanvision.org.uk.
2 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Executive Summary
The East Midlands Aggregate Working Party (AWP) is one of nine similar working parties throughout England and Wales established in the 1970's. The membership of the East Midlands AWP is detailed in Appendix 1. This Annual Monitoring (AM) report provides sales and reserve data for the calendar year 1st January – 31st December 2016. The report provides data for each of the sub-regions in the East Midlands, which are as follows:
• Derbyshire
• Leicestershire
• Nottinghamshire
• Rutland
• Derby
• Leicester
• Nottingham
• Peak District National Park, which incorporates areas within Sheffield, Barnsley, Kirklees, Oldham, Cheshire East and Staffordshire
It is not a policy-making body, but is charged with data collection to facilitate planning by Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs), national government agencies and the industry, and to inform the general reader.
Crushed Rock • Total Crushed Rock Sales of 28.11mt, up 22% on 2015 figures. • Total Crushed Rock Reserves of 1,306.46mt, up 0.65 % on 2015 figures. • The Crushed Rock Landbank (based upon 10 years average sales) is 55.49 years, up from 54.79 years in 2015. Land-won Sand and Gravel • Total Land-won Sand and Gravel Sales of 6.95mt, up 0.81% on 2015 figures. • Total Land-won Sand and Gravel Reserves of 60.90mt, down 13.5% on 2015 figures. • The Land-won Sand and Gravel Landbank (based upon 10 years average sales) of 9.14 years, down slightly from 10.126 years in 2015.
3
Landings of Aggregates • Little or no material has been landed in the East Midlands for aggregates purposes. Sustained demand for aggregates in the coastal belt is relatively low and navigable coastal wharfage is effectively limited to Boston. • Wharfage is also available at Gainsborough, Sutton Bridge and Fossdyke but none of these sites are equipped for landing aggregates. Total aggregate sales, reserves and landbank During the 2016 monitoring period total aggregate sales increased from 29.89mt in 2015 to 35.07mt in 2016. This is the second highest sales figure in the past 10 years and brings the region closer to the pre-recession levels. There has been a gradual increase since 2009 (except the low in 2012) with a marked increase this year with crushed rock sales showing a 17% uplift form 2015 figures. This brings total aggregate sales to 6.99mt below the annual guidelines1 for aggregate provision of 42.06mt. Total aggregate reserves increased from 1,342mt as at 31 December 2015 to 1,367mt with increases in both sand and gravel and crushed rock reserves. Aggregate crushed rock sales, reserves and landbank Sales of crushed rock aggregate increased from 22.99mt in 2015 to 28.11mt in 2016, the highest recorded sales figure since 2008. Sales of both limestone and igneous rocks increased from 2015 level, with a significant increase seen in Limestone sales. Total reserves of crushed rock aggregate increased from 1,274mt in 2015 to 1,306mt at 31 December 2016. These differences are due to reappraisals by operators and new permissions. The crushed rock landbank for the East Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 55.49 years, in excess of the “at least” 10 year requirement of the NPPF. Landbanks for the sub-regions are detailed in the Table 4. Aggregate sand and gravel sales, reserves and landbank Sales of land-won aggregate sand and gravel have increased slightly from 6.90mt in 2015 to 6.95mt in 2016. Reserves of land-won aggregate sand and gravel were 60.90mt as at 31 December 2016, down from 70.46mt in 2015. This figure does not include sand sold for non-aggregate purposes. The sand and gravel landbank for the East Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 9.14 years (based on 10yrs sales). Landbanks for the sub-regions are detailed in table 4 and table 4a for Lincolnshire specific area breakdown.
1 National and regional guidelines for aggregate provision in England 2005 - 2020, Communities and Local Government, June 2009 4 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 1. INTRODUCTION...... 6 BACKGROUND ...... 6 PLANNING POLICY ...... 7 REPORT SCOPE ...... 9 2. DEVELOPMENT PLANS ...... 10 3. PRIMARY AGGREGATES ...... 12 TOTAL AGGREGATE SALES, RESERVES AND LANDBANK ...... 12 AGGREGATE CRUSHED ROCK SALES, RESERVES AND LANDBANK ...... 12 AGGREGATE SAND AND GRAVEL SALES, RESERVES AND LANDBANK ...... 13 OVERVIEW ...... 20 DERBYSHIRE ...... 20 PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK ...... 21 LEICESTERSHIRE AND RUTLAND ...... 23 LINCOLNSHIRE ...... 25 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ...... 26 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ...... 28 SUMMARY ...... 30 4. SECONDARY AND RECYCLED AGGREGATES ...... 31 DERBYSHIRE ...... 34 LEICESTERSHIRE ...... 34 LINCOLNSHIRE ...... 35 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE ...... 35 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ...... 35 RUTLAND ...... 35 PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK ...... 35 5. MARINE SOURCES ...... 36 APPENDIX 1: BREAKDOWN TABLES ...... 39 APPENDIX 2: AWP MEMBERSHIP ...... 41 APPENDIX 3: AWP MEETING MINUTES ...... 43 APPENDIX 4: GLOSSARY ...... 56 APPENDIX 5: ACRONYMS ...... 57 APPENDIX 6: ACTIVE, INACTIVE AND DORMANT AGGREGATE MINERAL WORKINGS ...... 58 APPENDIX 7: MONITORING OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS ...... 69 PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR PRIMARY AGGREGATE EXTRACTION DETERMINED 1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2016 ...... 69 APPENDIX 8: THE EAST MIDLANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS ...... 73
5
1. Introduction
1.1. This 2016 Annual Monitoring Report (AM2016) for the East Midlands has been prepared from returns made by the operators of quarries in the East Midlands in response to a party wide survey and provides sales and reserve data for the calendar year 1st January – 31st December 2016.
Background
1.2. The Aggregates Working Parties2 (AWPs) were established in the 1970s to collect and monitor data on aggregates provision as an aid to minerals planning. AWPs are joint local government-central government-industry bodies that monitor the supply of, demand for, and reserves of, all aggregates including both primary aggregate and alternative sources in the East Midlands mineral planning authority areas. They also consider the implications of supply to, and from, these areas. They are not policy-making bodies, but provide information to facilitate the work of Mineral Planning Authorities (MPAs), national government agencies and the minerals industry. They also feed regional views to the Government through the national forum, the National Coordinating Group (NCG).
1.3. The core functions of the AWP, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, are to:
• consider, scrutinise and provide advice on the Local Aggregate Assessments of each mineral planning authority within the East Midlands area;
• provide an assessment of the position of overall demand and supply for the Aggregate Working Party area; and
• obtain, collect and report on data on minerals activity within the East Midlands area.
1.4. The AWPs operate under contracts between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Chairs of the AWPs, and receive funding from the Department to prepare papers, reports, and data collations as recommended by the NCG.
1.5. The East Midlands Aggregates Working Party (EMAWP) was established in 1974. The membership of EMAWP comprises officers of each of the MPAs, representatives of three industry trade associations; the Mineral Products Association (MPA), the British Aggregates Association (BAA) and the Federation of Demolition Contractors, and officers of the
2 Were previously known as Regional Aggregate Working Parties but has now changed to reflect national guidelines. 6 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Department of Communities and Local Government (CLG). It comprises the following sub - regions:
• Derbyshire
• Leicestershire
• Lincolnshire
• Northamptonshire
• Nottinghamshire
• Rutland
• Derby
• Leicester
• Nottingham
• Peak District National Park
1.6. EMAWP is chaired by a Chief Planning Officer or Director from one of the MPAs. The 2016 Chairman was Lonek Wojtulewicz, Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment at Leicestershire County Council. The AWP is also serviced by a Technical Secretary, who for 2016 was Mike Halsall of Urban Vision. The membership of the East Midlands AWP for 2016 is set out in Appendix 2 and minutes of the most recent AWP meeting are presented at Appendix 3.
Planning Policy
1.7. There are several policies that the AWP complies and takes guidance from.
The National Planning Policy Framework
1.8. The NPPF requires MPAs to make provision for a steady and adequate supply of minerals; to define mineral safeguarding areas; to safeguard wharves, rail heads and certain aggregate processing facilities and plant.
1.9. The NPPF requires MPAs to participate in an Aggregates Working Party (AWP); to prepare an annual Local Aggregates Assessment (LAA); to make provision for the land won or other
7
elements of their LAA in their mineral plans, taking account of the advice of the AWP and the National Aggregate Coordinating Group (NCG) as appropriate.
Guidance on the Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS)
1.10. AWPs are to produce an annual report on minerals activity in their area, provide technical advice to MPAs on the adequacy of a LAA, and provide an assessment on the position of overall demand and supply in its area, including whether, in its view, the area is making a full contribution towards meeting both national and local needs.
National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2009
1.11. The most recent National and Sub National Guidelines is the National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England 2005-2020 published on 29 June 2009. The levels of provision set out in the Guidelines are summarised in Table 1.
Table 1: National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, 2005 –2020 (Mt)
Guidelines for land-won Assumptions production in Region New Regions Mt. Land–won Land-won Marine Alternative Net Sand & Crushed Sand & Materials Imports to Gravel Rock Gravel (a) England South East England 195 25 121 130 31
London 18 0 72 95 12
East of England 236 8 14 117 7
East Midlands 174 500 0 110 0
West Midlands 165 82 0 100 23
South West 85 412 12 142 5
North West 52 154 15 117 55
Yorkshire & the Humber 78 212 5 133 3
North East 24 99 20 50 0
ENGLAND 1,028 1,492 259 993 136
8 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Report Scope 1.12. As with previous AM surveys, this AM2016 report is primarily to monitor at the East Midlands scale. Data on primary aggregates sales from land-won sand and gravel sites and for crushed rock for 2016 has been provided by operators via the AWP technical secretary who collated the individual site returns. An inventory of quarries is provided in Appendix 6.
1.13. Other information on secondary and recycled aggregates and events of interest is also provided along with information on planning decisions and progress on Development Plan Documents. In order to provide an indication of trends, this Annual Report compares data for 2016 with data for earlier years.
1.14. The planning context for this report is the National Planning Policy Framework3 (NPPF) at the national level and local plans as the overall strategic plan for the area.
3 National Planning Policy Framework, DCLG March 2012 9
2. Development Plans
2.1. All of the MPAs in the East Midlands have adopted plans (or saved policies) related to minerals planning as set out in Table 2.
Table 2: Development Plans during 2016
Authority/County
Derbyshire The Derby and Derbyshire Minerals Local Plan, was adopted in April 2000 and the First Alteration, on coal policies, was adopted in 2002. Work began on the
preparation of the new Minerals Local Plan in 2009. The Issues and Options Report was published in 2010. A rolling consultation was undertaken during 2015 and 2016 and then an additional consultation on hard rock sites was carried out at the beginning of 2017. The draft Plan will be published in autumn 2017.
Peak District The Peak District National Park has a Core Strategy which was adopted in National Park October 2011. An Issues and Options consultation was carried out for the Park in 2012. It is anticipated that a full version of the policies will be out for
consultation in summer 2016. This will include a policies map with more detailed safeguarding areas, including for building stone.
Leicestershire Core Strategy and Development Control Policies documents in respect of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework were adopted in October 2009.
Consultation on the pre-submission draft Leicestershire Minerals and Waste Local Plan took place in July 2016.
Lincolnshire The first part of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies document, was adopted by
the County Council on 1 June 2016 and replaces the Lincolnshire Minerals Local Plan (1991) and most of the policies of the Lincolnshire Waste Local Plan (2006), with the exception of policies WLP2, WLP6 and WLP12 of that document. These policies are saved until the second part of the Plan, the Site Locations Document, has been adopted. The Site Locations (Pre-Submission Draft) (Regulation 19) document was published for consultation on 7 November 2016 for a six week period in relation to soundness and legal compliance This document has subsequently been submitted to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government for independent examination. Public hearing sessions are scheduled to take place in the week commencing 24th July 2017
Northamptonshire The Minerals and Waste Local Plan was adopted on 1 October 2014. It brought together four separate DPDs (Core Strategy, Waste sites, Minerals
sites and DM policies) into one combined plan, revised as appropriate, and extended the plan period to 2031. The ‘Update’ to the Local Plan commenced on the day the current plan was adopted. This partial review concentrated on allocations and designations. A call for sites was issued on 9 October 2014 asking for potential new sites or the support of existing allocations to come
10 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Authority/County forward by 1 December 2014. Consultation on an Issues and Options document (and which included all potential minerals, but not waste, sites put forward from the call for sites) took place for eight weeks until 9 July 2015. Consultation on the Draft Plan was held for ten weeks from 3 December 2015 to 11 February 2016 and consultation on the Proposed Submission stage took place from 10 May to 21 July 2016 with the Submission document submitted to the Secretary of State on 18 August 2016. The examination hearing sessions took place on 29 and 30 November 2016 and the plan is now being taken through to adoption. It was approved by full council on 15 June 2017 and is expected to be formally adopted on 1 July 2017.
Nottinghamshire The Nottinghamshire Minerals Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on December 15th 2016. Following a change of administration after the
County Council elections, the county council resolved to withdraw the Plan from examination at its meeting on 25 May and instruct officers to review the level of provision for aggregates in the Plan in light of the latest evidence regarding future aggregates need. A report on the scope and timetable for resubmission of a revised Plan is being made to the July meeting of the Councils Communities and Places Committee.
Officers of Nottinghamshire County and Nottingham City Councils have met to discuss the proposed Waste Sites and Policies document which would supplement the adopted Waste Core Strategy. It is agreed that at present there is no compelling case to make site allocations in the near future and the officers of both Councils consider that the best approach would be to begin to prepare a Joint Waste Local Plan. This will incorporate a review of the Core Strategy policies, locational guidance and development management planning policies. A report on the timetable for preparing a Joint Local Plan will be taken to the City and County Joint Committee on Strategic Planning and Transport in September 2017.
Nottingham City Part 2 Local Plan (Land and Planning Policy Document – LAPP) Revised Publication is planned to be consulted on through summer 2017 with an
anticipated submission for examination in winter 2017.
Rutland The Minerals Core Strategy was adopted in October 2010. An ‘update’ to this plan commenced in 2015 which forms part of the Rutland Local Plan Review. The Review includes extending the plan period to 2036 and updating content in line with the NPPF. The Local Plan Review Issues and Options document was consulted on in November 2015 and the Draft Plan consultation is due to commence on 31 July 2017.
11
3. Primary Aggregates
3.1. Surveys of the sales (generally equating to production) and permitted reserves, were carried out by MPA’s for the calendar year 2016. In line with previous practice in the region, data was sub-divided into crushed rock and sand/gravel and is shown within tables within the main body of this report. A more detailed breakdown of figures is provided within Appendix 1 to the report.
3.2. Tables 3-5 provide an provide an overview of sales, reserve and landbank figures for aggregate land-won crushed rock and sand and gravel across the East Midlands region covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2016.
Total aggregate sales, reserves and landbank
3.3. During the 2016 monitoring period total aggregate sales increased from 29.89mt in 2015 to 35.07mt in 2016. This is the second highest sales figure in the past 10 years and brings the region closer to the pre-recession levels. There has been a gradual increase since 2009 (except the low in 2012) with a marked increase this year with crushed rock sales showing a 17% uplift form 2015 figures. This brings total aggregate sales to 6.99mt below the annual 4 guidelines for aggregate provision of 42.06mt. Total aggregate reserves increased from 1,342mt as at 31 December 2015 to 1,367mt with increases in both sand and gravel and crushed rock reserves.
Aggregate crushed rock sales, reserves and landbank
3.4. Sales of crushed rock aggregate increased from 22.99mt in 2015 to 28.11mt in 2016, the highest recorded sales figure since 2008. Sales of both limestone and igneous rocks increased from 2015 level, with a significant increase seen in Limestone sales. Total reserves of crushed rock aggregate increased from 1,274mt in 2015 to 1,306mt at 31 December 2016. These differences are due to reappraisals by operators and new permissions.
3.5. The crushed rock landbank for the East Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 55.49 years, in excess of the “at least” 10 year requirement of the NPPF. Landbanks for the sub-regions are detailed in the Table 4.
4 National and regional guidelines for aggregate provision in England 2005 - 2020, Communities and Local Government, June 2009 12 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Aggregate sand and gravel sales, reserves and landbank 3.6. Sales of land-won aggregate sand and gravel have increased slightly from 6.90mt in 2015 to 6.95mt in 2016.
3.7. Reserves of land-won aggregate sand and gravel were 60.90mt as at 31 December 2016, down from 70.46mt in 2015. This figure does not include sand sold for non-aggregate purposes. The sand and gravel landbank for the East Midlands as at 31 December 2016 was 9.14 years (based on 10yrs sales). Landbanks for the sub-regions are detailed in table 4 and table 4a for Lincolnshire specific area breakdown.
13 Table 3: Sales for aggregate purposes (2007 – 2016) (million tonnes)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 10 year Average 10
sales year sales Monitoring Period
Aggregate Crushed Rock Sales
Derbyshire 9.07 6.90 7.36 6.62 6.35 6.24 5.70 4.17 5.77 8.62 66.80 6.68
PDNP 3.81 4.12 1.75 1.69 1.50 1.78 2.60 2.73 2.84 3.81 26.61 2.66
Leicestershire and Rutland 16.18 14.88 11.77 12.23 12.42 11.07 13.22 14.37 13.68 14.25 134.06 13.41
Lincolnshire (Limestone/Dolomite) 0.99 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.39 0.51 0.45 0.38 0.43 0.76 5.33 0.53
Lincolnshire (Chalk) 0.25 0.07 0.04 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 0.13 0.49 N/A
Northamptonshire 0.38 0.21 0.16 0.18 0.24 0.14 0.20 0.25 0.28 0.55 2.58 0.26
Nottinghamshire 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 TOTAL CRUSHED ROCK SALES 30.71 26.70 21.54 21.17 20.89 19.74 22.17 21.89 22.99 28.11 235.91 23.54 Aggregate Sand and Gravel Sales
Derbyshire 1.22 1.11 0.91 1.04 1.10 0.81 0.82 0.95 1.13 1.29 10.38 1.04
PDNP - - - - - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A
Leicestershire 1.33 1.09 0.84 0.91 0.92 0.91 1.10 1.46 1.41 1.50 11.45 1.14 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 10 year Average 10
sales year sales Monitoring Period
Lincolnshire (see Table 3a) 2.47 2.27 1.99 1.79 1.92 1.85 1.88 2.15 2.19 2.17 20.67 2.07
Northamptonshire 0.36 0.25 0.17 0.22 0.24 0.40 0.51 0.52 0.27 0.40 3.33 0.33
Nottinghamshire 3.52 2.82 1.60 1.88 2.06 1.91 1.73 1.77 1.91 1.59 20.79 2.08
TOTAL SAND & GRAVEL SALES 8.91 7.54 5.50 5.83 6.23 5.88 6.04 6.85 6.90 6.95 66.62 6.66
Total Aggregate Sales 39.61 34.24 27.04 27.00 27.12 25.63 28.21 28.73 29.89 35.07 302.53 30.20
15
Table 3a: Breakdown for Lincolnshire’s Sand and Gravel Sales (million tonnes)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total 10 Average year 10 year Monitoring Period sales sales
Lincoln/Trent Valley 0.97 0.52 0.73 0.82 0.87 0.81 0.88 1.07 1.02 1.13 8.82 0.88
Central 0.60 0.64 0.54 0.35 0.37 0.35 0.35 0.36 0.41 0.35 4.31 0.43
South Lincs 0.90 1.12 0.72 0.62 0.68 0.69 0.66 0.72 0.76 0.69 7.55 0.75
16 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Table 4: Landbanks for aggregates (2016) (million tonnes) LAA Average Landbank as forecast of 2005 – 2020 Landbank 2016 Annual Permitted at 31/12/2016 annual rate annual based on Landbank Aggregate Sales Reserves at (years) of future apportionme 2005-2020 based on LAA Sales 2007 – 31/12/16 (based on 10 demand nt figures apportion provision (million 2016 (million years (million (million ment figure (years) tonnes) (million tonnes) average tonnes) (as tonnes) (years) tonnes) sales) at 31/12/2016)
Aggregate Crushed Rock
Derbyshire 8.62 6.68 639.14 95.68 8.74 73.13 7.44 85.91
PDNP 3.81 2.66 214.54 80.61 4.05 52.97 1.79 119.86
Leicestershire and 402.37 30.01 16.90 23.81 13.39 30.05 Rutland 14.25 13.41
Lincolnshire (Limestone/Dolom 25.60 48.03 1.10 23.27 0.62 41.29 ite) 0.76 0.53
Lincolnshire 5.15 (a) N/A N/A N/A N/A (Chalk) 0.13 (a)
Northamptonshire 0.55 0.26 16.32 63.27 0.30 54.41 0.39 41.85
Nottinghamshire 0 0.00 3.34 N/A5 0.10 33.4 0.02 1116
5 There is a 3.34Mt dormant reserve in Nottinghamshire, however as this has not been worked in recent years the average sales reserve is too low to calculate landbanks based on past 10 years sales. 6 Figures taken direct from LAA in account of current dormant status of the existing reserve. 17
LAA Average Landbank as forecast of 2005 – 2020 Landbank 2016 Annual Permitted at 31/12/2016 annual rate annual based on Landbank Aggregate Sales Reserves at (years) of future apportionme 2005-2020 based on LAA Sales 2007 – 31/12/16 (based on 10 demand nt figures apportion provision (million 2016 (million years (million (million ment figure (years) tonnes) (million tonnes) average tonnes) (as tonnes) (years) tonnes) sales) at 31/12/2016)
TOTAL CRUSHED ROCK LANDBANK 28.11 28.69 1,306.46 55.49 31.19 47.72 23.65 55.24
Aggregate Sand and Gravel
Derbyshire 1.29 1.04 12.54 12.08 1.49 8.41 1.03 12.18
PDNP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Leicestershire 1.50 1.14 4.01 3.50 1.51 2.66 1.12 3.58
Lincolnshire 2.17 2.07 19.57 9.47 3.28 5.97 2.37 8.26
Northamptonshire 0.40 0.33 3.55 10.68 0.78 4.56 0.50 7.11
Nottinghamshire 1.59 2.08 21.22 10.21 3.81 5.57 1.70 12.48
TOTAL SAND & GRAVEL LANDBANK 6.95 6.66 60.90 9.14 10.87 5.60 6.74 9.04
18 Table 4a: Breakdown for Lincolnshire’s Sand and Gravel Landbank
2016 Average Permitted Landbank as at 2005 – 2020 Landbank LAA figure Landbank Aggregate Annual Reserves 31/12/2016 annual based on (million based on Sales Sales at (years) (based apportionment 2005-2020 tonnes) (as LAA (million 2007 – 31/12/16 on 10 years figures apportionment at provision tonnes) 2016 (million average sales) (million (years) 31/12/2016) figure (million tonnes) tonnes) (years) tonnes)
Lincoln/Trent Valley 1.13 0.820 8.40 10.24 1.00 8.40
Central Lincs. 0.35 0.43 3.14 7.29 3.28 4.99 0.50 6.28
South Lincs. 0.69 0.76 8.03 10.64 0.87 9.23
Overview
3.8. The total average sales, reserves and landbank for the East Midlands as a whole for 2016 are as per Table 5.
Table 5: Overview
Landbank as at Average Annual Reserves 31/12/2016 (years) Sales 2007 – 2016 (based on 10 years (million tonnes) (million tonnes) average sales)
Crushed Rock 23.54 1,306.46 55.49
Sand and Gravel 6.66 60.90 9.14
Derbyshire
3.9. There are four active operations producing sand and gravel in Derbyshire, three along the Trent Valley (Glacio-fluvial deposits) and one at Mercaston (Sherwood Sandstone). One site (Elvaston) is inactive and there is a further site with permitted reserves at Potlocks Farm, Willington, which is not operational. Attenborough Quarry has now been worked out and the quarry closed at the end of 2015. A planning application for an extension to Willington Quarry was approved during 2016 and will allow production to continue for another seven years. A planning application to extend Swarkestone Quarry and maintain production for a further eight years is under consideration. The loss of production from Attenborough is likely to be replaced by production at quarries in nearby Nottinghamshire.
3.10. Derbyshire is one of the largest producers of aggregate grade crushed rock in this country. There are a total of thirteen quarries producing crushed rock for aggregate in the area, eleven of these working the Carboniferous Limestone resource mainly in the areas around Buxton and Matlock, one working the Permian Limestone resource near Whitwell and there is one active gritstone quarry, near Glossop. There are a further four quarries which are currently inactive. At current rates of production, reserves at these active and inactive sites would last around 100 years.
3.11. In 2009, Derbyshire imported around 200,000 tonnes of sand and gravel from other MPAs in the East Midlands (mainly from Nottinghamshire). It imported a further 196,000 tonnes from other areas. In 2014, 356,000 tonnes was imported into the area from other regions. It exported around 480,000 tonnes in 2009 and 442,000 tonnes in 2014. It can be seen, East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
therefore, that Derbyshire is a net exporter of sand and gravel. This implies that Derbyshire is providing sufficient sand and gravel to meet its own needs and therefore able to supply other local needs. From a review of other LAAs, future production from quarries in adjoining MPAs, which serve similar markets to the Derbyshire sand and gravel quarries, will be sustained at similar levels for the foreseeable future. The overall balance of production from these areas supplying similar markets is, therefore, likely to remain similar.
3.12. In 2009, 31% of the 9 million tonnes of aggregate grade crushed rock that was quarried from Derbyshire and the PDNP was used within this same area and around 44% of the total production was consumed in the East Midlands (including Derbyshire and the PDNP). The figures for 2014 are 27% and 32% respectively. In terms of exports, a significant proportion of Derbyshire and Peak District’s production goes to the North West, 25% in 2009 and 36% in 2014. Yorkshire/Humber, West Midlands and East of England together also take a significant amount (26% in 2009 and 8% in 2014) and the South East, London, Wales and the South West regions together take about 2%.
3.13. Additional provision will have to be made for 3.31 million tonnes of sand and gravel for the Plan period to 2030. (This will be reduced to 1.24mt once the additional reserves at Willington Quarry are incorporated into the figures in the next LAA). This provision will be made in the emerging Minerals Local Plan for Derbyshire and Derby through allocated sites and also preferred areas. Sites have been put forward by mineral operators which are being assessed through the Local Plan process and the sites which are allocated in the final Plan will address the future requirement for sand and gravel to 2030. Annual monitoring will ensure that a seven year landbank is maintained throughout the Plan period.
3.14. Derbyshire are relying on production at quarries in Nottinghamshire to replace loss of production at one of the sites in their area and already relies on imports from their and other areas, although is a net exporter. It is anticipated that additional provision will be secured within the emerging Minerals Local Plan through allocated sites and preferred areas.
Peak District National Park
3.15. The Peak District has historically provided a considerable volume of minerals, including aggregates. There are currently seven quarries producing aggregates, which has been a reduction from previous reports due to planning permissions ending or sites closing prior to permitted end dates due to economic reasons.
21
3.16. Ballidon Quarry, Parwich, Old Moor Quarry, Buxton (part of Tunstead Quarry in Derbyshire County Council’s administrative area), and Topley Pike Quarry, Buxton, all have long term permissions and unworked reserves and will continue to provide limestone aggregates at a significant scale. Stoke Hall Quarry, Grindleford produces gritstone aggregate along with dimensional stone, this is a small scale producer of aggregates. Ivonbrook Quarry, Grangemill, produces limestone aggregates at a medium scale, reserves are depleting and restoration is anticipated in the short term.
3.17. The PDNP has a policy in its Core Strategy (Policy MIN1) which does not allow for further new quarries or extensions to existing quarries, in order to reduce progressively the amount and proportion of aggregate grade crushed rock that is quarried from within the Park in order to protect the nationally protected landscape.
3.18. Another important consideration in this respect is that the NPPF seeks to provide for the maintenance of landbanks for non-energy minerals outside areas such as National Parks. Future contributions of aggregate from the Peak District National Park will need to be considered in light of this.
3.19. Through previous discussions with members of the Aggregate Working Party in preparing the 2005-2020 apportionment figures, it was agreed that quarries in Derbyshire (i.e. those within the county boundary not covered by the National Park) (serving similar markets to those in the National Park which are likely to cease production) would compensate for the majority of the displaced provision from the PDNP. Derbyshire County Council has agreed to continue this approach throughout this Plan period.
3.20. Derbyshire and PDNP is a significant net exporter of aggregate grade crushed rock to other areas, amounting to an average of around 9 million tonnes each year. Derbyshire has significant resources of hard rock compared to many other areas in the country and it will be important, therefore, to maintain this level of supply in order to sustain and stimulate national economic growth.
3.21. Leicestershire is the only adjoining authority which produces aggregate crushed rock to any significant extent. The Leicestershire LAA indicates also that there will be sufficient reserves in the future to sustain production at recent levels. It is likely, therefore, that the overall balance of production from areas supplying similar markets to Derbyshire and the PDNPA is likely to remain similar over the timescales covered by the authorities Development Plans.
22 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Leicestershire and Rutland Leicestershire
3.22. Sales in 2016 from Leicestershire operations were 6% higher than in 2015 for sand and gravel; and around 4% higher for crushed rock
3.23. There are 5 sand and gravel sites currently active in Leicestershire, at Brooksby, Cadeby, Husbands Bosworth, Lockington, and Shawell. Two of these sites involve the working of alluvial and river terrace deposits, while the remainder work glacial deposits.
3.24. Planning permission was granted in 2016 for a small extension at Brooksby Quarry for the extraction of around 61,000 tonnes.
3.25. Igneous rock extraction within Leicestershire is currently taking place at 4 sites, namely Bardon; Cliffe Hill; Croft; and Mountsorrel. Whitwick and Groby quarries are currently inactive, although coating and concrete plants are maintained at Groby. Two carboniferous limestone quarries are operational within Leicestershire at Breedon on the Hill and Cloud Hill.
3.26. Planning permission was granted in July 2016 to extend the limit of extraction at Cliffe Hill Quarry, releasing an additional 2.6 million tonnes of stone.
3.27. Sand and gravel operations within Leicestershire tend to serve local markets. In 2014, 57.8% of sales were within Leicestershire/Rutland. The remaining material generally travelled to neighbouring counties and regions from sites located close to the County boundary. The main destinations for material exported beyond the County were the West Midlands (12.8%), and Northamptonshire (8.7%).
3.28. In 2014, a significant quantity (61.6%) of crushed rock was exported from the county. Thirteen per cent of material was distributed to other authorities within the East Midlands. The main destinations for material exported beyond the East Midlands were the East of England (17.3% of total sales); London and the South East (11.9%); and the West Midlands (10.6%).
3.29. There will be a potential shortfall of sand and gravel reserves within Leicestershire over the period to 2031 of some 13 million tonnes based on the production guideline i.e. the average of 10 years sales data. The Pre-submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan (July 2016) includes proposals for the extraction of 7.2 million tonnes of potential reserves. The Plan allows for additional provision to be made from unallocated areas provided certain criteria are met.
23
3.30. Whilst the theoretical permitted reserves of igneous rock appear to be adequate, technical considerations led the East Midlands Aggregates Working Party (EMAWP) to express concern in 2010 regarding the medium to long term ability of Leicestershire to supply crushed rock, at existing levels, particularly to areas like the South East and London. The EMAWP advocated that action be taken to address concerns over medium to long term future supplies of igneous rock from Leicestershire, bearing in mind the nationally strategic and uncertain nature of the Leicestershire resources beyond the existing permissions.
3.31. This situation has also been recognised in a report from the British Geological Survey (‘An evidence based approach to predicting the future supply of aggregate resources in England’ 2011) which concluded that “by far the most important foreseeable shortfall in the medium- to long-term is amongst the four rail-connected igneous quarries in Leicestershire.”
3.32. The current strategy for aggregate minerals, as set out in Policy MCS2 of the existing Minerals Core Strategy (and reiterated in the Pre-Submission Draft Minerals and Waste Local Plan), is to release reserves of crushed rock to be worked as extensions to existing extraction sites where they are required to ensure sustainable supply.
3.33. Permissions were granted in 2011 and 2015 to release approximately 150Mt of new reserves at existing quarries.
3.34. There are sufficient permitted crushed rock reserves to meet requirements up to 2031. If production at any of the existing active sites cannot be maintained, it may be possible to increase production capacity at other sites which are currently inactive in order maintain the level of provision from quarries within Leicestershire.
Rutland
3.35. Rutland is relatively small in terms of mineral production and there are currently only four quarries with planning permission for the extraction of crushed rock (limestone). Limestone is currently extracted from Clipsham Quarry (Clipsham), Greetham Quarry (Greetham) and Woolfox Quarry (Greetham).
3.36. Greetham Quarry is the main production unit for crushed rock in the county but has limited reserves remaining. The medium-scale operation Woolfox Quarry also has limited reserves, however Clipsham Quarry (also of a medium-scale) has relatively longer term reserves remaining. The permission at Woolfox Quarry is due to expire in the medium term (2019) however trends in sales over recent years indicate that the permission end date will need to
24 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
be extended in order for the quarry to be fully worked. Clipsham Quarry has the potential to provide a long term supply (to 2028).
3.37. Thistleton Quarry is a relatively large scale quarry but remains inactive. It is an old ironstone permission with modern planning conditions for limestone extraction. It is uncertain when the quarry will become active as it is dependant on, amongst other things, the construction of a dedicated quarry haul road.
Lincolnshire
3.38. The principal aggregate produced in Lincolnshire is sand & gravel. Over the past 10 years, sales have amounted to an average of 2.07mt per year. Due to the large size of the county, it is divided into three Production Areas (PA) known as:
• the Lincoln/Trent Valley PA (with production focussed to the south-west of Lincoln); • the Central Lincolnshire PA (with production mainly focussed in the Lower Bain Valley); and • the South Lincolnshire PA (with production mainly focussed in the Baston-Langtoft-West Deeping Area).
3.39. There are 10 active sand and gravel workings in the County divided between the three Production Areas. Both the Lincoln/Trent Valley and the South Lincolnshire Production Areas have landbanks of permitted reserves exceeding the 7 year minimum (based on the most recent Local Aggregate Assessment). The Central Lincolnshire Production Area is slightly below 7 years, but an application at the Kirkby on Bain Quarry approved in April 2015 remains subject to the completion of a planning obligation which will add a further 7 years to the landbank.
3.40. The County also produces limestone for aggregate from quarries located along the Lincoln Edge down into the Kesteven Uplands, between Lincoln and Stamford. Twelve of these are currently operational. The production of limestone for aggregate went into decline after the year 2000 when sales reached 1.5mt, with production over the past 10 years down to an average of 0.62mt per year. The county currently has a landbank of permitted reserves of 41 years, significantly above the 10 year minimum advised in the National Planning Policy Framework.
25
3.41. A very limited amount of chalk is also produced in the county from quarries located in or adjacent to the Lincolnshire Wolds A.O.N.B. Two are currently operational, but no information is available on production levels or whether the material is being used as aggregate.
3.42. In 2014, only 38.4% of sand and gravel extracted within Lincolnshire went to destinations within the County. The remainder was exported mainly to the rest of the East Midlands (41.3%), but with significant quantities going to Yorkshire and Humberside (8.8%) and to the East of England (7.9%). 163,000 tonnes of sand and gravel were imported into the County in 2014 (Collation of the Results of the 2014 Aggregate Monitoring Survey for England and Wales, DCLG, March 2016) (a reduction of 68% on 2009) making the County a significant net exporter of sand and gravel (some 1,160,000 tonnes). The County has allocated sites in it emerging Plan to meet future needs.
3.43. There were no significant changes in the distribution data for crushed rock extracted in Lincolnshire in the years 2009 and 2014, as shown in Table 14. In both years, most of the crushed rock went to destinations within the County (84.6% in 2009 and 87.2% in 2014). The largest markets outside the county were elsewhere in the East Midlands, particularly the adjacent County of Leicestershire (11.9% in 2014). The limited market for Lincolnshire's crushed rock reflects its limited uses as an aggregate.
3.44. Imports of crushed rock into Lincolnshire totalled 317,000 tonnes in 2009 which rose to 446,000 tonnes in 2014 (Collation of the Results of the 2009 Aggregate Minerals Survey for England and Wales, DCLG October 2011). Lincolnshire was therefore a net importer of crushed rock in both years, but with a higher amount (398,000 tonnes) in 2014.
3.45. Lincolnshire has sufficient permitted reserves of crushed rock to last well beyond the period of the CSDMP which ends in 2031. The County Council has therefore not allocated further sites in the Site Locations (Pre-Submission Draft). Policy M5 (Limestone) and Policy M6 (Chalk) of the CSDMP do, however, allow further reserves to be released provided they meet a proven need that cannot be met by existing sites/sources and accord with all Development Management Policies and Restoration Policies set out in the Plan.
Northamptonshire
3.46. The supply contribution from active sand and gravel sites in Northamptonshire is currently limited. In 2016 sand and gravel extraction took place at only three locations in Northamptonshire of which Bozeat Quarry (Bozeat) was the biggest production site. The other locations were at Elton Estate, Warmington (extraction associated with an agricultural
26 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
reservoir) and Passenham. At Passenham extraction also took place in that part of the site in Milton Keynes Borough. Both Bozeat and Elton Estate quarries were fully worked in 2016. Two further sand and gravel quarries are permitted: Earls Barton West (an extension to the Earls Barton Quarry) and Earls Barton Spinney. These permission are implemented but currently not operational. Both are relatively significant sites and regular extraction from both locations is expected to commence in 2017.
3.47. The supply contribution from active crushed rock sites is currently firmer than that for sand and gravel. In 2016 limestone extraction continued at Collyweston (Duddington) and Ringstead with smaller contributions from Harley Way (Oundle), Rushton and Pury End Quarry. A western extension to Collyweston Quarry was granted in 2016 which has over 2 Mt of limestone reserves. The permission is yet to be implemented. Sandstone extraction for aggregate and building stone purposes continued at Harlestone.
3.48. The large ROMP site at Wakerley Quarry has substantial limestone reserves of 11.25 Mt. Extraction is expected to commence in 2017. The small quarry at Stonehill (Wansford) in the far north east of the county was inactive in 2017. Two further sites are permitted for the small scale extraction of limestone for non-aggregate purposes; Collyweston Slate Mine and Stonepits Quarry (Benefield), however both permissions remain unimplemented. Small scale sandstone extraction is permitted at ROMP site Land at Boughton-Pitsford-Moulton. It is a dormant site with extraction expected to commence in 2017.
3.49. Northamptonshire has five permitted sand and gravel quarries. In 2014 (the most recent figures available) 0.52 Mt of sand and gravel was produced in Northamptonshire of which 0.17 Mt (33%) was exported. 1.1 Mt of sand and gravel was imported, leaving an export/import balance of +0.58 Mt; making the county a significant net importer. Sand and gravel is imported from a range of different areas although mainly from the East of England and the rest of the East Midlands region.
3.50. If sites allocated for sand and gravel development in the county, or from alternative non- allocated sites, do not continue to come forward for development over the plan period (and this has indeed largely been the case post 2009) then there would continue to be some reliance on imports from sites elsewhere. It is reasonable to assume that this is likely to generally be from areas that the county currently takes its imports from. Northamptonshire is a net importer of material and sees this continuing unless sites come forward for extraction.
27
3.51. The 2014 AM survey shows that movements of crushed rock are not self-balancing and the county’s imports of crushed rock are significant, as shown in Table 6. Of the 0.24 Mt produced in the county, 0.10 Mt (42%) was exported with 0.14 Mt remaining within the county and 0.9 Mt imported. Imports outweighed exports by 0.8 Mt, over three times the amount the county produced in 2014.
3.52. Crushed rock is imported from a range of different areas, although predominately from Leicestershire in the East Midlands region, accounting for between 60 - 70% of all imports; predominantly as igneous rock from the Charnwood Forest area of Leicestershire.
3.53. In 2014 the majority (58%) of crushed rock produced in Northamptonshire (limestone and ironstone) stayed within the county. Exports elsewhere in the East Midlands amounted to 70% of all exports, including Leicestershire and Rutland (accounting for 46%) with the remainder exported to the East of England region (30%).
3.54. There will likely continue to be a reliance on imports of crushed rock even if allocated or non- allocated sites for limestone extraction come forward over the plan period due to the demand for higher quality igneous rock, not produced in the county. It is reasonable to assume that future imports are likely to be from areas that the county currently takes its imports from.
3.55. The supply contribution of limestone sites is firmer than for sand and gravel and there are currently significant permitted reserves (particularly as the permission at Wakerley Quarry has now been issued) to maintain the government recommended 10 year landbank.
Nottinghamshire
3.56. Mineral production from Nottinghamshire continues to be dominated by extraction of sand and gravel, extracted from 11 sites across the county, primarily split between the Idle Valley and Trent Valley. A cluster of sites in the Trent Valley (Langford Lowfields and Besthorpe) supply a large proportion of Nottinghamshire’s output of sand and gravel. Reserves in the Idle Valley are reaching the end of their life, with remaining production limited to sites at Misson and Scrooby. To the South of the County, East Leake Quarry is reaching the end of its permitted life, but a planning application to extend the life of the site for 10-12 years has been approved pending a Section 106 agreement. Two additional sites across the County with planning permission have yet to be implemented (Sturton le Steeple, Cromwell).
3.57. Extraction of Sherwood Sandstone comes from five sites in Nottinghamshire, though only four of those are currently active. Principal output is from sites located between Nottingham
28 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
and Mansfield (Bestwood 2, Burnstump). A secondary source of Sherwood Sandstone is derived as a by-product from the significant Silica Sand quarry within Nottinghamshire (Two Oaks). Sherwood Sandstone extraction also continues alongside sand and gravel extraction at Scrooby in the Idle Valley.
3.58. Limestone production is dominated by a quarry at Nether Langwith, north of Mansfield with permission to extract 3.35 Mt of material. This site became operational in May 2001 and had an expected life of 13 years. However, this site was mothballed in 2009 due to the economic downturn. Remaining activity in the county is limited to at present one small building stone quarry at Linby.
3.59. Exports of both sand and gravel and Sherwood Sandstone continue to remain a significant proportion of sales. This trend is likely to continue over the next plan period as sand and gravel resources, particularly those in Rotherham and Doncaster are limited. Resource depletion in the Idle Valley is likely to be the biggest factor potentially influencing exports to South Yorkshire. It is likely that sand and gravel will either be sourced from quarries around Newark or from other areas outside of Nottinghamshire that may be closer.
3.60. The biggest planning issue for Nottinghamshire and Nottingham is the long term provision of sand and gravel over the plan period. There are eleven permitted sand and gravel quarries in Nottinghamshire, although at present only nine are in full production with a further quarry, Girton, only working existing stockpiles. Further reserves will, however, need to be released over the life of the Minerals Local Plan to 2036, as existing quarries are worked out. A call for sites with the minerals industry along with additional work will be undertaken as part of the Minerals Local Plan evidence base. The emerging local plan will need to identify future resources through consultation with Industry.
3.61. Limestone resources in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham are relatively limited therefore the majority of crushed rock used is imported. The 2014 Full East Midlands Annual Minerals Survey states that 1.26 million tonnes of crushed rock were imported into Nottinghamshire, whilst no mineral was exported.
3.62. The survey identified Leicestershire, Derbyshire (including the Peak District National Park Authority) and Yorkshire and Humberside (predominately Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council) as the main sources of crushed rock.
3.63. The most recent Leicestershire LAA states that adequate reserves are available to meet expected future demand over the plan period. The Derbyshire LAA also states that adequate 29
reserves remain available to meet expected future demand from outside Derbyshire. This takes into account the reduction in output from the Peak District National Park. The Doncaster and Rotherham LAA identifies a 33 year landbank for crushed rock based on 2015 figures.
3.64. Concern has been expressed by Industry that the Nottinghamshire LAA should not include the landbank figure as this is calculated based upon a single mothballed site and would prefer that the reserves figure is instead presented. That said, the LAA provides both figures.
3.65. The importation of crushed rock from adjoining areas to meet the County’s needs is set to continue as limestone sales from Nottinghamshire remain at zero. The permitted but mothballed quarry at Nether Langwith contains permitted reserves and could be re-opened by the operator to meet additional demand in the future.
Summary
3.66. There is clearly a challenge with regards to the future provision of sand and gravel reserves within the AWP area, particularly in areas such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire which are becoming increasingly reliant on imports. In some instances, Local Plans require proposals for extraction to come forward from Industry on unallocated sites, e.g. Leicestershire.
3.67. There appears to be no significant issues with the future provision of crushed rock within the AWP area. Some areas such as Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire are reliant upon imports and other areas like Derbyshire and Leicestershire are large exporters of material, this is likely to continue. Ongoing cooperation between neighbouring authorities will therefore be essential to ensure adequate reserves are provided in the future. There remain concerns over the medium to long term future supplies of igneous rock from Leicestershire, bearing in mind the nationally strategic and uncertain nature of the Leicestershire resources beyond the existing permissions.
30 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
4. Secondary and Recycled Aggregates
4.1. Recycled Aggregate, which includes inert materials such as concrete, stone, brick and other similar materials, are reprocessed materials previously used for construction purposes and which are often taken from the Construction, Demolition and Excavation (CD&E) waste stream. Secondary aggregates are usually by-products of industrial processes and can include materials such as clay, ash and slag.
4.2. The use of secondary and recycled materials not only reduce the requirement for new production of primary aggregate, but also reduces the need for disposal to landfill of CD&E waste materials. The National Planning Policy Framework (para 163) recognises this and strongly promotes the use of secondary and recycled materials as an alternative to primary aggregate.
4.3. Since the AWPs were established attempts have been made to measure and gain an understanding of the extent to which recycled and secondary materials have been used (these two categories are also often known as “Alternative Aggregates”). Despite severe difficulties in obtaining reliable data (even for a single year), the National Guidelines, have for laudable environmental reasons, set figures which regions should aim to achieve.
4.4. A number of surveys have been conducted going back at least as far as those of the Building Research Establishment in the 1970s for the Verney Report. The AWPs have also made various survey attempts. However, in all cases the results have been very variable in output and quality. Since the 1990s Central Government has commissioned a number of national surveys, findings from the more recent of which have been reported in previous EMAWP Annual Reports.
4.5. The most recent study, undertaken by Capita Symonds for 2005 arisings, was published in February 2007. The survey methodology was very similar to that used in earlier surveys undertaken for 2001 and 2003. As in 2003, owing to lessons learned during the 2001 survey, the findings of the 2005 survey were considerably more robust at regional level. However, at sub-regional level they remained unreliable.
4.6. The estimate for production of recycled aggregate throughout England had risen from 39.60Mt in 2003 to 46.44Mt in 2005. Information provided by respondents suggested that although modest, the growth was real. In the East Midlands, it was estimated that 5.09Mt of recycled aggregate was produced and that effectively all of this was re-used. This figure is
31
approximately 17% higher than for 2003. In addition 0.50Mt of recycled soil was produced and re-used, a small reduction from 2003. Of the remaining construction, demolition and excavation waste (CDEW) available in the region, it was estimated that 0.97Mt was used for landfill engineering and restoration, 0.73Mt was used at “exempt” sites and 2.53Mt was disposed of as waste at landfill sites. This final figure is about twice that for 2003 but it appears that it includes material used for backfilling quarry voids which in 2003 was calculated separately and in the East Midlands was estimated to be 1.84Mt. As in 2003, there was little evidence that any hard construction and demolition waste that could be recycled into aggregate was being landfilled as waste.
4.7. The survey looked for relationships between arisings of CDEW and other factors and found that, except in London, there was a reasonably constant level of per capita arisings of CDEW around the country. In the East Midlands it was estimated that the average level of arisings per capita was 1.24 tonnes per annum. The results are broken down to a sub-regional level as follows: Derbyshire, 2.0 tonnes per annum; Nottinghamshire & Lincolnshire (excluding N&NE Lincs) 1.0 tonnes per annum; Leicestershire & Rutland 0.76 tonnes per annum; Northamptonshire 1.16 tonnes per annum. Derbyshire apparently has the highest level of recycled aggregate arisings per capita of any sub-region in England. The report does not attempt to explain this but points out that the area has a below average population density, a long history of primary aggregate supply and sits between a number of areas of high population density such as Greater Manchester and Sheffield.
4.8. In tandem with the CDEW survey, Capita Symonds carried out a survey of other materials used as aggregate. In the East Midlands the most significant categories of material were colliery spoil and PFA. It was estimated that there were about 1.75Mt of colliery spoil arisings in 2005. However, only 0.36Mt was put to use as aggregate with a further 1.4Mt potentially available. In addition there are believed to be almost 3Mt potentially available in stockpiles. Turning to PFA (Pulverised Fuel Ash), there were about 1.29Mt of arisings in 2005 of which 0.23 Mt was used as aggregate. A further 0.46Mt was put to other used (such as block making) leaving 0.59Mt potentially available. Smaller arisings of other materials were also recorded including FBA (Furnace Bottom Ash), incinerator ash, rail ballast and glass. Of these FBA was the most significant with most of the 0.26Mt arising being put to aggregate uses. However, the increasing use of biofuels and the demise of coal-burning for generation may limit the availability of PFA/BFA for aggregate purposes since this use is not compatible with the use of such fuels.
32 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
4.9. Following a number of years of increased local activity in the recycled and secondary aggregate sector, the slowing down of new applications in the East Midlands first reported in 2004 steadied around 2008 with few new applications coming forward. However, application numbers have increased in recent years and a number were received in 2015 as reported in Appendix 7. Existing sites continued to operate. A list of active sites producing aggregates in 2015 is set out in Appendix 6.
4.10. No surveys of recycled aggregates (other than the road planings survey) have been carried out by EMAWP as, when attempted at national level in the 1990s and 2000s, the percentage of returns has been so poor as to preclude local interpretation. In general, the production of recycled aggregates mirrors the economy. When the economy is in a positive position, there is more demolition/building work being undertaken and so more recycled aggregate being produced and used. The opposite is true during an economic downturn. Production rates of recycled aggregate cannot therefore be easily predicted or relied upon.
4.11. The best available data for recycled and secondary aggregates is that provided through analysis of information contained in the Environment Agency’s Waste Data Interrogator (WDI). The WDI has been used to identify the amount of CD&E waste produced and handled at licensed waste facilities within each Waste Authority and is presented by sub-region in the table below. It is likely to only represent a proportion of the recycled aggregates in circulation. The most up-to-date data available from the Environment Agency Waste Data Interrogator is from 2016. For ease of repetition, the data has included all waste categorised as Inert in the WDI, this will include wastes which may not be suitable for use as recycled aggregate. The WDI does not include information specifically for the Peak District National Park, therefore arising for the PDNP will be included under the relevant Authorities under which waste data is collected.
Amount Produced Amount Managed Authority (tonnes) (tonnes)
Derbyshire & Derby city 729,747 822,237
Leics + Leic City 1,592,660 1,469,710
Rutland 74,585 78,488
Lincs 897,481 880,914
Northants 1,334,745 1,687,064
Notts 1,424,845 1,729,159
33
Amount Produced Amount Managed Authority (tonnes) (tonnes)
EM uncodeable 615,075
Total 6,669,137 6,667,572
4.12. Data for 2016, shows that arounf 6.67mt of CD&E was produced and a similar amount was managed. Of the waste managed in the EM, over two thirds was excavation waste (nearly 4.57mt) and the remainder C&D waste (2.09mt). The majority (60%) of excavation waste was managed at landfill sites, with 16.5% being used in recovery/reclamation. Around 10% was managed in treatment facilities and less than 1% recycled. For construction and demolition waste, only 4% was managed at landfill sites, 11% was recycled and 31% managed at treatment sites. A further 31% was handled through transfer stations and 16% through transfer/treatment facilities.
4.13. A brief review of the overall situation within the EMAWP area follows, based on information made available.
Derbyshire
4.14. Recycling of construction and demolition waste (and hence the production of recycled aggregate) is often dealt with at temporary sites and sites exempt from permitting by the Environment Agency and hence good quality data on locations of production and amounts produced is not available. Additionally, a large and unknown proportion of this material is often re-used/recycled on site, and therefore does not enter the waste stream, as such making it difficult to record. By applying the growth rate from the East Midlands Regional Waste Strategy 2006, it is estimated that from 2012 to 2030, Derby and Derbyshire will produce around 3 million tonnes of recycled aggregate on an annual basis.
Leicestershire
4.15. Existing operational recycling capacity for C&D waste in Leicestershire is estimated to be around 860,000 tonnes. There are currently no industrial processes in Leicestershire which are known to produce ‘secondary’ aggregates.
4.16. Planning permission was granted in November 2016 for a recycling plant at Croft quarry producing up to 200,000 tonnes of recycled aggregate materials per annum
34 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Lincolnshire 4.17. Existing C&D recycling capacity in Lincolnshire is estimated at around 500,000 tonnes, as set out in the 2016 Lincolnshire Waste Needs Assessment . Total C&D arisings in 2015 (the latest available data) amounted to 254,058 tonnes of which 24% was recorded as managed by recycling at 16 sites in the county. A further 191,321 tonnes sent to transfer facilities was sent to other sites as secondary arisings. 12 of the permitted C&D recycling operations for the production of secondary aggregates are located within quarries, however not all of these are operational at this time.
Northamptonshire
4.18. Twenty one sites in Northamptonshire have permission for the production of recycled aggregates. The recycling capacity for CD&E waste is estimated to be approximately 500,000 tonnes per annum. There are currently no industrial processes in Northamptonshire which are known to produce secondary aggregates.
Nottinghamshire
4.19. The total number of aggregate recycling sites permitted in the County and Nottingham City stood at 12, all of which were active in 2016. There is no information on actual outputs.
Power Station Ash
4.20. Around 1.7 million tonnes of power station ash is produced from the County’s three remaining coal fired stations. About 85% comprises pulverised fuel ash (PFA), the remaining 15% being coarser grade furnace bottom ash (FBA).
4.21. PFA is used as a light weight bulk fill and as a cement additive. There is no recent sales data although aggregate sales are likely to account for a significant proportion of total production. Ash that is not sold is disposed of at land raising schemes adjacent to the station. The sites are located at Cottam, West Burton and Ratcliffe-on-Soar.
Rutland
4.22. Rutland had two aggregate recycling facilities in 2016. There are currently no facilities that produce secondary aggregates.
Peak District National Park
4.23. N/A
35
5. Marine Sources
5.1. Currently approximately 20% of the sand and gravel used in England and Wales is supplied by the marine aggregate industry. Marine aggregates are also used in beach replenishment schemes. Large volumes of aggregates are pumped directly from dredgers onto beaches, providing coastal protection as well as enhancing the amenity value and therefore the economy of an area. The document ‘Aggregate dredging and the Humber Coastline’ produced in 2015 by The Crown Estate & British Marine Aggregate Producers Association 2 (BMAPA) states that in 2014, a total of 726km of seabed was licensed for marine aggregate 2 extraction around the UK, of which 86km was actually dredged. A total of 17.25 million tonnes of marine aggregate was extracted during 2013, of which 11.87 million tonnes was used for construction aggregate in England and Wales, 2.99 million tonnes was exported to the Continent for use as construction aggregate, and 2.38 million tonnes was used for beach replenishment and contract fill at locations across the UK.
5.2. The National and Regional Guidelines for Aggregates Provision 2001 – 2016 published in June 2003 assumed that marine aggregate will not contribute towards meeting demand in the East Midlands. The same assumption is made in the more recent Guidelines for 2005 -2020 published in June 2009. This is in accordance with the position which has been obtained in most years since EMAWP was established in 1974. There has sometimes been marine dredging off the Lincolnshire coast. Sustained demand for aggregates in the coastal belt is relatively low and navigable coastal wharfage is effectively limited to Boston. Wharfage is also available at Gainsborough, Sutton Bridge and Fossdyke but none of these sites are equipped for landing aggregates.
5.3. The above referenced document produced by the Crown Estate and BMAPA identifies that, off the coastline of the Humber region (Holderness and Lincolnshire), 159.1km2 of seabed area was licensed for marine aggregate extraction. Within this, dredging actually took place in 13.47km2, producing 2.19 million tonnes of marine sand and gravel. This figure dropped slightly to 2.14 million tonnes in 2015. In 2014, some 0.43 million tonnes of marine aggregate dredged from licensed areas in the region was landed at wharves in North East England for use as construction aggregate, and a further 0.10 million tonnes was landed in the Thames Estuary for the same use. A further 1.04 million tonnes was exported to the near Continent, also to be used as construction aggregate. Marine aggregate is also commonly used to support beach nourishment schemes, providing benefits to communities, local economies and the environment. In 2014, 0.62 million tonnes was supplied to the Lincolnshire coast for
36 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
this purpose and since 1999 over 10 million tonnes of marine sand and gravel has been used to support coast defence schemes across the North East of England. During 2015, 595,891 tonnes was landed at Humber ports.
5.4. Permitted reserves of marine aggregates in the Humber dredging area for 2015 is 55.16 mt, showing a large increase of 29.84 mt compared to 2014 due to new dredging licenses being issued. The 10 year average annual offtake is 2.51 mt, down 0.15 mt compared to 2014, and so the regional reserve life in years at the ten year average annual offtake is 21.96, showing an increase of 12.06 years compared to 2014. Some additional key information from the Marine Aggregates Capability & Portfolio (2015) produced by The Crown Estate is provided below.
37
Extract from Marine Aggregates Capability & Portfolio (2014) produced by The Crown Estate
38 Appendix 1: Breakdown Tables
Table 6: Sand and Gravel Sales (all figures in tonnes)
SAND GRAVEL Total Total Total S&G for Unknown Aggregate Non- Construc Buildin Concreti Other Other Sales s aggregat Coating Concrete tion Fill g Sand ng Sand Uses Gravel e use
Derbyshire 48,800 318,520 0 0 378,288 99,160 441,490 0 1,286,258 0 1,286,258
Leicestershire and 19,371 896,866 1,292 0 206,717 364,539 8,809 0 1,497,594 0 1,497,594 Rutland
Lincolnshire 155,308 939,396 0 25,527 409,583 356,519 286,662 0 2,172,995 5,064 2,178,059
Northamptonshire 9,010 162,898 0 0 69,381 419 158,445 0 400,153 0 400,153
Nottinghamshire 204,498 423,024 183,598 0 235,824 331,461 78,335 135,000 1,591,740 252,866 1,844,606
TOTAL 436,987 2,740,704 184,890 25,527 1,299,793 1,152,098 973,741 135,000 6,948,740 257,930 7,201,606
Table 7: Subdivision of the above
SAND GRAVEL Total Total Non- Total S&G for Unknown Aggregates aggregate Construction Buildin Concreti Other Other Sales use Coating Concrete Fill g Sand ng Sand Uses Gravel
Lincoln/Trent 0 Valley 52,373 500,434 5,342 302,374 184,728 88,331 0 1,133,582 0 1,133,582
Central 90,416 150,539 0 6,658 8,690 77,420 11,647 0 345,370 5,064 350,434
South Lincs 12,519 288,423 0 13,527 98,519 94,371 186,684 0 694,043 0 694,043
Table 8: Crushed Rock Sales
ROADSTONE OTHER OTHER USE TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL RAIL CONCRET SCREENE CONSTRU UNKNO AGG. NON-AGG. BALLAST/ E D CTION WN USE Coated at Coated Not ARMOUR AGGREGA GRADED INCL. FILL Site Remotely Coated STONE TE AGG
Derbyshire 0 162,898 1,523,326 0 1,992,735 3,679,569 1,257,222 0 8,624,750 2,435,192 11,059,942
PDNP 107,180 327,195 916,195 7,660 1,142,793 318,110 987,941 0 3,807,352 4,121,403 7,928,755
Leicestershire and Rutland (Limestone/Dol omite) 250,078 57,686 249,447 0 234,043 407,356 162,604 0 1,361,214 1,417,158 2,778,372
Leicestershire and Rutland (Igneous rock) 631,835 3,039,761 4,393,377 1,705,335 1,396,353 414,302 1,308,898 0 12,889,861 77,062 12,966,923
Lincolnshire (Limestone/Dol 80,000 0 539,491 144,287 0 763,778 270,070 1,033,848 omite) 0 0
Northamptons hire 0 0 0 0 0 1,325 188,301 357,733 547,359 1,875 549,234
Nottinghamshi re 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 989,093 3,587,540 6,794,345 1,712,995 4,765,924 5,060,153 4,049,253 382,733 28,019,314 8,322,760 36,342,074
40 Appendix 2: AWP Membership
Aggregate Working Party Representatives
Chairman Lonek Wojtulewicz Head of Planning, Historic and Natural Environment Leicestershire County Council County Hall Glenfield LE3 8RA Tel: 0116 305 7040 Mob: 07943585857 [email protected]
Technical Secretary Carolyn Williams Group Leader: Minerals & Waste Planning Unit Urban Vision Partnership Ltd Civic Centre Chorley Road Swinton Salford M27 5AS Tel: 0161 604 7746 [email protected]
Government Representatives
Department for Eamon Mythen Communities and Local Planning for Minerals and Sustainable Waste Management Team Government DCLG Planning Directorate: Infrastructure and Environment Division Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Tel: 0303 44 41654 [email protected]
Local Government Representatives
Nottinghamshire County Council Lisa Bell7
Peak District National Park Authority Jane Newman
Derbyshire County Council Richard Stansfield8
Lincolnshire County Council Adrian Winkley
Northamptonshire County Council Phil Watson9
Leicestershire County Council Nigel Hunt10
Rutland County Council Peter Beever
Derby City Council Andrew Waterhouse
Leicester City Council Fabian D’Costa
Nottingham City Council Matthew Gregory
Industry Representatives
Mineral Products Association (MPA) HQ Mark North
MPA/Hanson Aggregates Keith Bird
MPA/Tarmac Trading Tim Deal
MPA/Breedon Aggregates Colin D’Oyley
Aggregate Industries Kirsten Hannaford-Hill
Breedon Southern Ltd Graeme King
BAA (East Midlands)/Longcliffe Aggregates Nigel Weedon
Other Representatives
Environment Agency Jim Davies
7 also represents Nottingham City Council. (see corresponding members) 8 also represents Derby City Council. (see corresponding members) 9 Also represents Rutland County Council (see corresponding members) 10 also represents Leicester City Council (see corresponding members) 42 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 3: AWP Meeting Minutes
East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Minutes of Meeting 6th April 2016 11am – 1pm Venue: Room ‘Guthlaxton’, Leicestershire County Council, County Hall, Glenfield, LE3 8RA Attendees Eamon Mythen DCLG EM Fabian D'Costa Leicester FDC Graeme King Aggregates GK Hannah Sheldon-Jones Urban Vision (Secretariat) HSJ Jane Newman Peak District JN Jim Davies Environment Agency JiD Jo Davies Breedon Aggregates JoD Keith Bird Hanson KB Kirsten Hannaford-Hill Cemex KHH Laura Davidson Northamptonshire & Rutland LD Lisa Bell Nottinghamshire LB Lisa Pickford Tarmac LP Lonek Wojtulewicz Leicestershire (Chair) LW Malcolm Ratcliff Mineral Products MR Mark North Mineral Products MN Martin Clayton Longcliffe MC Michelle Spence Derbyshire MS Nigel Hunt Leicester NH Paul Statham Leicester PS Richard Leonard Lincolnshire RL Richard Stansfield Derbyshire RS
Apologies Adrian Winkley Lincolnshire Andrew Waterhouse Derby Bill Crookes ?? David Troy Rutland Gary Redfern Marshalls Howard Button Demolition NFDC Mark Chant Northamptonshire Matthew Gregory Nottingham Nigel Weedon Rutland Peter Beever Rutland Phil Watson Northamptonshire Rob Murfin Derbyshire Sally Gill Nottingham Tim Deal Tarmac
43
Item 1 - Introduction and Apologies
1.1 Lonek Wojtulewicz (LW) welcomed everyone to the meeting. He invited members to introduce themselves for the benefit of the new secretariat.
Item 2 – Minutes from Last Meeting
2.1 LW noted that the minutes from the last meeting held in Leicester on 27th November 2014 were issued. As these are now nearly 18 months old, LW suggested there was no point going through in detail, but invited members to raise any points of inaccuracy. No concerns were raised.
Item 3 – Annual surveys 2014 Annual Report 3.1 Hannah Sheldon-Jones (HSJ) noted that there are lots of data errors and outstanding information in the draft report, and urged members to provide an update and corrected figures by 13th April. Once all information is received HSJ will issue a revised document for review w/c 18th April.
Action: Members to provide outstanding information and HSJ to update the report accordingly.
3.2 LW invited members to raise any comments on the draft report. It was agreed that most comments required an email response due to the nature of the figures required. 3.3 Richard Leonard (RL) and Malcolm Ratcliffe (MR) enquired as to why the 2014 report does not include the same detail and breakdown as previous reports. HSJ explained that as this report was now out of date, the emphasis was on drafting and approving a report promptly, and not asking for the detailed breakdown of data in order to help facilitate a speedy turnaround. Members asked HSJ and Eamon Mythen (EM) for guidance as to whether to re- draft the report and include the detail breakdown. EM stated that it is not DCLG’s intention to be prescriptive and if members want the breakdown, then it should be provided. After some discussion, it was agreed that a supplementary table will be included as an appendix to the 2015 report which will provide the figures for this detail.
Action: HSJ to include supplementary 2014 data in the 2015 report.
2015 Survey
44 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
3.4 HSJ reminded members of the deadlines for survey responses and asked everyone to please chase operators for the outstanding information. HSJ asked members how they are progressing with collecting data and what their response rate is. 3.5 Lisa Bell (LB) noted that Nottinghamshire are struggling, with only a 50% response rate so far. 3.6 Jane Newman (JN) said the Peak District still has 14 outstanding responses. JN also stated that she feels the deadlines are too early on in the year; in previous years they would sometimes not be until September, and thinks the April deadline is not realistic. JN suggested that members could estimate if they have a nil response from operators, but this is not an accurate reflection of the situation. 3.7 LW was reluctant to change the timetable and urged members to chase all outstanding information based on the current deadlines. 3.8 MR asked if there is a pattern of those not returning the survey forms. 3.9 Michelle Spence (MS) noted that smaller operators are prompt, but the larger ones are not. 3.10 MR suggested writing to the operators, informing them that members will estimate if there is no response. 3.11 Lisa Pickford (LP) admitted that there is some delay with returns from Tarmac this year, due to issues with cross boundaries and the tight deadline. 3.12 Laura Davidson (LD) said that Northamptonshire and Rutland have had all their returns submitted and will send to HSJ as soon as possible. 3.13 JN asked why the AWP are asking for destination information in the 2015 survey. The AWP usually ask for this every 4 years. This makes it less likely to get a response as it’s an onerous task. 3.14 HSJ explained that the survey form is based on the North West AWP survey, and this is what they do there. However, HSJ explained that this can be removed for future surveys if the AWP wishes. 3.15 LW suggested that as the timetable is tight, members could ask operators to return the important information, and if the destination information is holding up a response, operators can leave this out. 3.16 LP and Graeme King (GK) agreed that they would like to have this removed this year in order to meet the deadline. 3.17 It was agreed to remove this section to encourage a speedy response. 3.18 Keith Bird (KB) noted that they sent the survey forms without the destination question this year. 3.19 No other issues were raised with regards to the survey.
Item 4 – LAAs
4.1 HSJ referred to the LAA timetable (Appendix 1) used by the West Midlands AWP, and asked if something similar would be beneficial for the East Midlands (with the exception of the May meeting, as there seems little point in having another meeting so soon). HSJ suggested that this may be more useful for 2017, seeing as there is already progress with LAA’s for 2016.
45
4.2 LW agreed that members need to align for next year as this year’s LAA’s are already in development. 4.3 LW asked what the MPA thinks of this. Will it be an issue if all LAA’s are completed at the same time for every AWP? 4.4 MR admitted it would be a struggle, but AWP’s need to stick to a timetable otherwise it drags on. As an AWP, members need to be looking at all LAA’s in tandem to make sure they fit together and to see what the overall picture is. MR thinks the AWP should stick to this timetable. MR reminded members that the AWP report referenced in the timetable will be based on the previous year. 4.5 LW asked if the planning authorities had any thoughts. 4.6 LB reminded members that she requires an AWP response to the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham LAA by 16th April. They must work towards a timetable of approval in June as indicated by their members. HSJ to prepare an AWP response of ‘no objections’. LP noted that her colleague, Tim Deal will provide comments to HSJ by Friday 8th April.
Action: HSJ to draft a response to the Nottinghamshire and Nottingham LAA.
4.7 MS believes the Derbyshire LAA should be complete in the summer. 4.8 MR stated that there is no problem in being early – just a problem with being behind the timetable. 4.9 LW made reference to the two papers that were circulated ahead of the meeting. These are a response to comments made by the MPA on Rutland and Northamptonshire’s LAA. The AWP has never made formal comments on these LAA’s. HSJ to provide a formal response by 22nd April declaring support. 4.10 MR raises some methodology issues around the landbank figures used, several are used in this LAA which is confusing. The MPA prefer one figure which is based on the 10 year average. But if a policy figure is different, then a comparison with that could be useful. MR noted that members sometimes confuse local provision with landbank. This is not a policy document, it is a monitoring one. 4.11 LD responded that in the LAA’s in question, figures included adopted provision, latest 10 year and latest 3 year average. This was to ensure that all bases were covered. 4.12 MR stated that the PPG is clear that it should be the figure that comes out of the LAA. 4.13 LD said the figure was put there to monitor the trends. But she takes MPA’s point that it’s just a market indicator. 4.14 LW stated that there is an issue nationally around the consistency of LAA’s, and suggested that this may be revisited by MPA in the future. 4.15 MR said that this issue has been raised at all other AWP meetings; some standardisation of presentation would be useful. 4.16 LW asked all members to please respond to HSJ on Northamptonshire and Rutland LAA’s as soon as possible, if nothing is received from members, it will be assumed there are no objections. No further objections were raised.
Action: HSJ to draft a response to the Northamptonshire and Rutland LAA’s.
46 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
4.17 LW questioned a comment MPA made the Northamptonshire and Rutland LAA’s with regards to the housing link. 4.18 MR responded that it has become clear in other AWP’s that overall national forecasting will need a large input from the industry. MPA’s main concern is that something forward looking is produced. Industry is experiencing a rapid increase in demand, but policy can’t keep up. Sales are declining, and MR is sceptical about the review of plans. Many have been to examination with a better methodology. MR is aware of devolution deals, which are designed to accelerate and facilitate growth, but there is an inconsistent link between aggregates demand and level of investment. 4.19 LB raised a concern about whether the housing figures are aspirational, as this is not reflected in local plans. LB asked where the evidence is and whether this is a reality or not. 4.20 LW stated that there is a risk that reports are overly complicated with little correlation with the evidence and data, which may not give an accurate view of what’s going on. 4.21 MR said that a correlation has been identified but not a cause. The data is not there yet. Bottom up planning for minerals is not good, but has to be done. It is not appropriate to keep projecting recession averages when there is a demand. 4.22 MS asked how useful having the same methodology for all LAA’s really is. 4.23 MR said the MPA is looking into this. The MPA’s chief role is to add the figures from all LAA’s and see if there’s an issue. 4.24 GK made reference to HS2. If we’re looking at historical need and projecting this forward, then we’re not going to be planning and forecasting for a realistic future demand. 4.25 MR stated that S&G is an issue as there are low landbanks. 4.26 MS asked should there be pressure for a longer landbank with S&G (i.e.10-11-12 years). 4.27 MR agreed, but doubts this will happen. Can’t guarantee it, but if there was some flexibility in terms of a float, then that would be useful. But this would have to be approved nationally and go to examination. New material in the landbank is needed.
Item 5 – Progress on Plans
5.1 LW said he is not proposing to ask each authority for an update, but asked if there were any further amendments to Appendix 2. 5.2 HSJ suggests adding another column to the table which states the actual adopted date. 5.3 JN said the Peak District is publishing their draft plan in August 2016. 5.4 Fabian D’Costa (FDC) will provide information on the cities.
Action: HSJ to amend the table for inclusion in the 2015 AWP report.
5.5 Jim Davies (JD) asked if there are any housing targets for the cities. 5.6 LW responded saying it is difficult to get the numbers, but they should be in the LAA’s. 5.7 FDC said they will have information at the end of this year. 5.8 LB has 9 districts in Nottinghamshire, all with different timetables, which makes it difficult to collate information.
47
5.9 LW made reference to a number of consultations which are out, including the Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG), which has two recommendations for minerals and waste plans: 5.10 “Recommendation 45. Minerals – We recommend a revision to the NPPG to the effect that the output from the Aggregates Working Parties should be given particular weight in planning decisions and in the preparation of minerals plans. 5.11 Recommendation 46. Minerals and Waste Plans – We recommend that the Government clarifies that it has comparable expectations for the completion of Minerals and Waste local plans”. 5.12 EM said this is a report from an expert group invited by the Secretary of State, which is currently out to consultation until 27th April. EM urged members to look at this and respond to the consultation. 5.13 LW asked if the AWP want to respond. 5.14 Mark North (MN) said the MPA will be responding and supporting the recommendations. 5.15 MR foresees problems with an official AWP response. The AWP are a group of experts giving an expert opinion. the response would have to be non-political. Members may inadvertently criticise their own plans. Anything coming from AWP would be anodyne; an expert view which is needed which is stripped of political consideration. Not sure if that can be done. 5.16 LW said that recommendation 45 recommends a revision of the NPPF to the effect that the output from the AWPs should be given particular weight in planning decisions and the preparation of mineral plans. As such maybe the AWP should put together a response asking for further clarification. We want clarity and to know what the consequences are. How does it fit in the whole planning system? 5.17 EM said that we need to check the credibility of the recommendations. Maybe other AWP’s should respond too.
Action: LW to draft a response and circulate for comment (to members and other AWP chairs) ready to submit on 27th April.
Item 6 – Industry Reports MPA
6.1 MN reported further on the local plan expert group, which is very housing centric (please see documents provided as an annex to these minutes). Mineral related recommendations are at number 45 and 46. 6.2 The MPA are having internal discussions about producing an abridged version of its economic quarterly forecasts, currently exclusively for Members, for publication externally to assist LAA work. 6.3 MPA figures show that aggregate sales up 15% in 2015, asphalt sales up 10%, and ready mix concrete up 4%. Latest forecast shows that medium term across all markets is positive. By 2019 it is estimated that aggregate sales are to be up by 19% compared to 2015, asphalt sales up 14% and ready mix concrete up 13%.The construction products association are expecting construction output to grow by 4.1% for 2016/17, with housing
48 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
growing by 5% for the same period. Infrastructure build (roads, rail, water, energy etc) is expected to grow by 57% by 2019. 6.4 Reference to the bird strike advice in previous minutes was made. .The advice has been updated as of May 2015 .It is planned to have a workshop later in the year on the issue. 6.5 MR and MN reminded everyone of the MPA/RTPI conference 18th May, which HSJ sent an email about the previous day – there will be a meeting on scenario monitoring which members may find useful.
Operators 6.6 KB said Hanson is opening up mothballed sites. 6.7 GK said Aggregates have a shortage of poorer quality primary aggregates. This is driving recycling applications. They too are opening mothballed sites following the recession elsewhere in the Midlands. Aggregates is seeing an increased demand for materials. 6.8 LW asks has anyone investigated how much material is needed for HS2. 6.9 MN and MR respond saying they are not sure. Someone may have done and allocated accordingly. MN believes there are aggregates figures for roads, but will formally ask the question. They think aggregates may come from London.
DCLG 6.10 EM provided a note as way of an official update from DCLG, and gave an overview of this at the meeting (please see document provided as an annex to these minutes). After this overview, EM invited members to ask him any questions. 6.11 EM then referred to forecast: there is a tension between planning for a steady supply and the bottom up approach. The existing approach has survived governments and other changes and it is currently operating and functioning, but it may not be suitable now that there are budget cuts and devolution deals etc. Going forward, EM asks how DCLG can rationally improve on their system, as they don’t have resources so will be looking at other colleagues. 6.12 LB says members and public believe we are driven by industry. 6.13 MN agrees there is a vacuum. MPA are looking at how they can help DCLG. Government are not going to reduce guidance, therefore sectors have to step in and MPA want to work together and be transparent. 6.14 Nigel Hunt (NH) asks if the national coordinating group still exists. 6.15 EM responds saying in the planning guidance there is a role for the national coordinating group. EM says the AWP secretariat meeting needs to be called first, and then think about calling a NCG. DCLG need to explore this, but there are no immediate plans. 6.16 LW asked about the devolution deals. Is aggregates tax to be devolved? What are the industry views? LW is not sure what the purpose is for doing this. 6.17 MR is not sure; the initiative seems to be there for those with a need for it. 6.18 EM has not seen any devolution deals with reference to minerals. 6.19 LB states that for unitary authorities and 2 tier authorities, there is different strategic planning, which makes it too tricky for districts. 6.20 MR says this may encourage some authorities to be more cooperative
49
Environment Agency 6.21 JD is involved in the ‘cutting red tape’ review. 6.22 With regards to the planning and permitting interface, the EA are reviewing guidance which includes waste, minerals and hydraulic fracturing. 6.23 Rgn13: should see something soon. MPA commented on the draft. 6.24 Dewatering quarries used to be exempt but is now in abstraction licensing – current consultation just closed. 6.25 MR says this could have an impact on quarrying with no dewatering in the future 6.26 JD continues to say that the EA boundaries are changing slightly, to align with Natural England, to reflect Defra’s joined up approach. As a consequence, members may see a change in personnel that cover their area. 6.27 Natural England are taking a more strategic approach towards newts – hopefully simpler and less expensive approach on projects. 6.28 GK explains this is to do only with ‘not a significant population of newts’, which can be a simpler process with regards to fencing on sites. This is an opportunity for operators not to have to invest in expensive fencing when they have small populations of newts on site. 6.29 MR asks if the EA have any plans to do more CDE surveys. 6.30 JD will find out.
Action: JD to ask internally at the EA about CDE surveys and report to the group.
Item 7 – Date of Next Meeting 7.1 As per the LAA timetable, a meeting in September is proposed to discuss the draft 2015 Annual Report.
Action: HSJ to propose a date and send a meeting invite.
Item 8 – Any other business 8.1 None. LW thanked everyone for attending, the Aggregate Working Party ended at 12.50pm.
Annex Number Reference
EMAWP Minutes 06042016 Annex 1 Paragraph 6.1
EMAWP Minutes 06042016 Annex 2 Paragraph 6.1
EMAWP Minutes 06042016 Annex 3 Paragraph 6.1
EMAWP Minutes 06042016 Annex 4 Paragraph 6.1
EMAWP Minutes 06042016 Annex 5 Paragraph 6.1
EMAWP Minutes 06042016 Annex 6 Paragraph 6.10
50 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
East Midlands Aggregate Working Party Minutes of Meeting 11th November 2016 11am – 1pm Venue: Room ‘Guthlaxton’, Leicestershire County Council, County Hall, Glenfield, LE3 8RA Attendees Adrian Winkley Lincolnshire AW Fabian D'Costa Leicester FDC Jane Newman Peak District JN John Wilson Nottinghamshire JW Keith Bird Hanson KB Laura Davidson Northamptonshire and Rutland LD Lonek Wojtulewicz Leicestershire (Chair) LW Mark North Mineral Products MN Martin Clayton Longcliffe MC Mike Halsall Urban Vision (Secretariat) MH Nigel Hunt Leicester NH Paul Statham Leicester PS Phil Watson Northamptonshire and Rutland PW Richard Leonard Lincolnshire RL Richard Stansfield Derbyshire RS Tim Deal Tarmac TD
Apologies Eamon Mythen DCLG Gary Redfern Marshalls Jim Davies Environment Agency Jo Davies Breedon Aggregates Karen Beresford Peak District Kirsten Hannaford-Hill Cemex Mark Chant Northamptonshire Sally Gill Nottinghamshire
51
Item 1 - Introduction and Apologies
1.2 Lonek Wojtulewicz (LW) welcomed everyone to the meeting. He invited members to introduce themselves for the benefit of the new secretariat. Mike Halsall (MH) announced the list of apologies.
Item 2 – Minutes from Last Meeting
2.2 LW noted that the minutes from the last meeting held in Leicester on 6th April 2016 were issued and invited any comments. Phil Watson (PW) noted that the list of attendees should show that Northamptonshire members also represent Rutland. No other concerns were raised.
Action: MH to update the minutes, finalise and re-issue to members.
Item 3 – Annual surveys 2014 Annual Report 3.20 MH read the key figures from the Executive Summary of the draft 2014 report and LW invited any comments on the report. Members from Lincolnshire noted errors within Table 4 of the report relating to reserves and landbank figures for Lincolnshire which will have a knock-on effect for other figures in the report.
Action: MH to update the report accordingly and re-issue for electronic sign-off.
2015 Survey
3.21 Members from Lincolnshire noted errors within Tables 3 (consistency issue with 2014 report), Table 4 and within Table 7 within Appendix 1. Members from Lincolnshire also requested that similar figures for 2014 be included within the appendix, as agreed during the previous AWP meeting and as documented within the Minutes. No other issues were raised with regards to the survey. Tim Deal (TD) noted errors in Paragraphs 3.23 and 3.25 (also relate to 3.19 and 3.21 of 2014 report). Laura Davidson (LD) noted a typo on the front cover.
Action: MH to update the report accordingly (requesting further data from members if required) and re-issue for electronic sign-off.
52 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Item 4 – LAAs
4.28 Northamptonshire’s draft LAA has been issued for consultation – responses have been received from the MPA and Leicestershire. Other members provided an update on their LAAs which will be circulated for comment in due course.
Action: MH to draft a response to the Northamptonshire LAA after deadline for responses on 23rd November 2016.
Item 5 – Progress on Plans
5.18 Nottinghamshire – Submission draft of Minerals Plan going to Full Council on 24th Nov with submission programmed for December – Waste Plan held back Northamptonshire – Minerals and Waste Local Plan examination 30th Nov – forming an update to adopted plan Rutland – Draft Preferred Options programmed for consultation in Feb 2017 Derbyshire – Completed year long rolling Consultation on the draft Strategies for the Plan in June 2016. The Draft Plan will be published for consultation in Spring 2017 and the Submission Plan will be published at the end of 2017. Leicestershire – Pre-submission plan published in July 2016, currently analysing responses. PDNP – Core strategy was adopted in 2011. Lincolnshire – pre-submission draft of the 'Site Locations document' has been published and goes to Full Council in Feb 2017. Leicester – Emerging Options and DM Policies in early 2017, programmed for adoption in 2018.
Item 6 – Industry Reports MPA
6.31 Mark North (MN) explained that the MPA’s Long-term Aggregates Supply and Demand Scenarios (2016-30) report had been circulated by MH. MN ran through some key figures.
Operators 6.32 TD explained that the recovery from the recession is still being felt by the Industry and they are still looking at bringing back mothballed sites, however, many closed during the recession. Declining landbanks of the West Midlands will have a knock-on effect in East Midlands and there are challenging times ahead for the Industry and Planners to ensure that new reserves are provided. TD highlighted the good level of service provided by local authorities and there is a clear desire by officers to make timely decisions, however, the process is often slowed by S106 negotiations, post determination. MN added that this is 53
reflected within the soon to be released MPA survey, as is the lack of resources within planning teams.
Item 7 – DCLG Update / Feedback from Secretaries Meeting 7.1 MH read some key points from an update email from Eamon Mythen of CLG as follows: • Minerals and Waste Minerals Planning Team – in April moved from the Planning Infrastructure Division into the Local Development Plans Division, our new DD is Steve Evison
• The new head of the Planning Directorate in DCLG is Simon Gallagher who replaced Ruth Stanier who has taken up a post in HMT
DCLG Update (relevant national matters) • Aggregate Mineral Survey (AMS) 2014 survey – published on Wednesday 2 November
Other updates – work priorities for Local Development Plans Division: • progressing the neighbourhood Planning bill;
• Housing and Planning White Paper;
• the response to the LPEG report and Rural Planning Review, plus a number of reviews will be contained in an array of annexes to the White Paper; and
• CRT – mineral Sector Review is basically held in “holding pattern” at the moment due to other work priorities
Update on AWP secretariat contracts • Ongoing funding – Funding for the AWPs Tech Secs for FY 2016/17 is in place and we are in discussions about securing funding for the AWPs Tech Secs funding into FY 2017/18 and beyond – we will let you know the outcome of these discussions when we reach a financial settlement
• Arrangement for next round - DCLG will seek to maintain the AWPs Tech Sec service beyond FY2017/18 and we will keep you informed of developments and the next 4yrl AMS survey
NACG meeting – discuss dates and agenda ideas • As you are aware it is for DCLG to call a meeting of the National Aggregate Coordination Group (NACG)
• We have no plans to call a NACG meeting at the moment, simply because we have a large amount of other workstreams we have to priorities
Priority is currently being given to: • progressing the Neighbourhood Planning Bill; and
• preparation of the Housing and Planning White Paper.
54 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
7.2 MH provided a brief update from the secretaries meeting (Minutes of Secretaries meeting attached). Item 8 – Date of Next Meeting 8.1 A meeting in Spring is proposed to discuss the draft LAAs. Action: MH to propose a date and send a meeting invite.
Item 9 – Any other business 9.1 None. LW thanked everyone for attending, the Aggregate Working Party ended at 11.55am.
55
Appendix 4: Glossary
Apportionment - currently set by the 'National and regional requirements for aggregate provision in England 2005-2020', a specified amount of aggregates to be produced annually on a sub-regional basis. Core Strategy/Local Plan - a plan setting out the spatial vision for the Local Planning area, the spatial objectives and strategic policies to deliver that vision. Duty to co-operate - introduced by the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, requires Local Authorities and other public bodies to co-operate on planning issues. High Specification Aggregate - natural and artificial coarse aggregates which meet the physical test criteria for Polished Stone Value and Aggregate Abrasion Value. Licence Application Area - areas which are in the process of being developed for new licence dredge areas. These areas are subject to a full environmental impact assessment and public consultation before permission is granted by the Marine Management Organisation. Licence Option Area - awarded by the Crown Estate following a successful tender by a company seeking to develop a new dredging area. The company is permitted to explore the area for viable resources during a period of 5 years, during which the licence application process must be completed. Licensed Dredge Area - active licensed dredge areas. Local Development Framework - a set of Local Development Documents which include the Local Development Scheme, Statement of Community Involvement and Local Plan. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provision rate – requires mineral planning authorities to making provision for the maintenance of landbanks of at least 7 years for sand and gravel and at least 10 years for crushed rock, whilst ensuring that the capacity of operations to supply a wide range of materials is not compromised.
56 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 5: Acronyms
AM Annual Monitoring
AMR Annual Monitoring Report
AWP Aggregate Working Party
BAA British Aggregates Association
BGS British Geological Survey
BMAPA British Marine Aggregate Producers Association
CDEW Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste
CLG Communities and Local Government
HSA High Specification Aggregate
LDF Local Development Framework
MDF Minerals Development Framework
MLP Minerals Local Plan
MPA Mineral Products Association
MPAs Mineral Planning Authorities
MPG Minerals Planning Guidance
MPS Minerals Planning Statement
Mt. Million Tonnes
NCG National Co-Ordinating Group
NFDC National Federation of Demolition Contractors
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
RPB Regional Planning Body
RPG Regional Planning Guidance
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy
RTAB Regional Technical Advisory Body
UDP Unitary Development Plan
57
Appendix 6: Active, Inactive and Dormant Aggregate Mineral Workings
Active, Inactive and Dormant Aggregate Mineral Workings in 2016 (material in dormant sites not surveyed). * Sites producing materials used for non-aggregate purposes only # Sites currently in “suspension” Active
An site is considered Active where mineral operations are currently being carried out to a substantial extent during the survey year.
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Derbyshire
Dukes SK 334 546 Building Stone 2042
Slinter Top SK 278 555 Limestone 2021
Grange Mill SK 810 726 Limestone 2042
Ashwood Dale SK 550 791 Limestone 2042
Ball Eye SK 288 574 Limestone 2042
Dowlow SK 850 692 Limestone 2042
Brierlow (Hindlow) SK 263 557 Limestone 2042
Whitwell SK 530 732 Dolomite 2025
Tunstead/Old Moor SK 100 745 Limestone 2042
Brassington SK 237 570 Limestone 2042 Moor/Longcliffe
Bonemill SK 247 559 Limestone 2042
Doveholes SK 880 766 Limestone 2042
Willington SK 276 275 Sand and Gravel
Mercaston Pit SK 268 444 Sand and Gravel 2042
Swarkestone SK 347 277 Sand and Gravel
Mouselow SK 240 951 Sandstone 2042
Shardlow SK 426 294 Sand and Gravel
Stancliffe SK 267 668 Sandstone
58 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Dene SK 287 559 Limestone 2042 Leicestershire
Breedon SK 406 233 Limestone 31/12/2042
Cloud Hill SK 413 212 Limestone 31/12/2025
Cliffe Hill SK 456 108 Igneous 31/12/2032
Bardon Hill SK 455 130 Igneous 31/12/2051
Croft SK 511 965 Igneous 31/12/2029
Mountsorrel SK 562 151 Igneous 21/12/2040
Lockington SK 476 296 Sand and Gravel 02/12/2025
Husbands Bosworth SP 643 829 Sand and Gravel 31/07/2020
Shawell SP 540 809 Sand and Gravel 31/12/2044*
Booksby SK 673 153 Sand and Gravel 31/12/2026
Cadeby SK 446 180 Sand and Gravel 31/12/2021
* includes permission for landfill operation Lincolnshire
Holywell (build only) SK 982 159 Limestone 04\11\2039
Longwood TF 061 592 Limestone 22\02\2042
Brauncewell TF 022 518 Limestone 17\04\2042
Glebe (build only) SK 989 410 Limestone 21\02\2042
South Witham (No2) SK 917 190 Limestone 01\04\2020
Creeton SK 999 205 Limestone 21\02\2042
Dunston TF 053 632 Limestone 27\05\2025
Metheringham Heath TF 054 614 Limestone 21\02\2042
Station Quarry, Great SK 934 303 Limestone 10\10\2055 Ponton
Whisby SK 894 669 Sand and Gravel 19\04\2067
Norton Disney SK 883 601 Sand and Gravel Lapsed
59
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Norton Bottoms SK 867 589 Sand and Gravel 24\02\2064
Kirkby on Bain TF 233 608 Sand and Gravel 20\03\2069
Tattershall (Park Farm) TF 207 601 Sand and Gravel 31\12\2027
North Kelsey Road TA 093 012 Sand and Gravel 21\06\2019
West Deeping TF 119 102 Sand and Gravel 05\06\2052
Manor (Farm) Pit TF 125 145 Sand and Gravel 15\02\2066
Baston No1 TF 138 148 Sand and Gravel 14\06\2020
Baston No 2 TF 143 136 Sand and Gravel 22\02\2042
South Thoresby TF 394 762 Chalk 27\11\2052
Colsterworth Triangle SK 900 324 Limestone 08\06\2066
Harmston SK 992 619 Limestone 26\07\2034
Copper Hill Quarry SK 979 426 Limestone 17\03\2044
Highfield TF 451 691 Chalk 21\02\2042
Little Ponton SK 932 325 Limestone 02\02\2042 Northamptonshire
Pury End SP 707 460 Limestone 31/12/2018
Collyweston Eastern SK 997 700 Limestone 31/12/2018 Extension
Harlestone SP 709 639 Sandstone & Ironstone 31/12/2016
Bozeat SP 900 604 Sand & Gravel 2016
Passenham Quarry SP 773 477 E477322 Sand & Gravel 2021 N239039
Ringstead Grange SP 981 739 Limestone 2029
Elton Estate TL 078 921 Sand & Gravel 31/12/2018
Harley Way TL 006 880 Limestone 2030
Rushton Landfill NG 485 283 Limestone 30/09/2017 Nottinghamshire
60 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Langford Lowfields SK 815 606 Sand and Gravel 2018
Besthorpe SK 815 651 Sand and Gravel 2023
Scrooby Top SK 890 651 Sand and Gravel 2017
Finningley SK 976 680 Sand and Gravel 2018
East Leake SK 270 551 Sand and Gravel 2027
Misson West SK 942 679 Sand and Gravel 2018
Burntstump SK 511 605 Sand and Gravel 2030
Bestwood 2 SK 525 566 Sand and Gravel 2020
Misson Newington SK 942 679 Sand and Gravel 2018
Misson Bawtry Road SK 942 679 Sand and Gravel 2031
Carlton Forest SK 822 666 Sand and Gravel 2018 Peak District NPA
Hope* SK 157 817 Limestone 21/02/2042
Ballidon SK 201 555 Limestone 31/12/2036
Ivonbrook SK 234 585 Limestone 31/12/2015
Hazlebadge Hills* SK 174 802 Limestone 30/11/2017
Old Moor SK 109 739 Limestone 31/12/2046
Topley Pike SK 101 722 Limestone 31/12/2026
Stoke Hall SK 237 770 Sandstone 21/02/2043
Chinley Moor* SK 049 852 Sandstone 31/05/2016
Dale View* SK 250 642 Sandstone 16/09/2030
Bretton Moor* SK 203 779 Sandstone 30/09/2031
Birchover* SK 242 624 Sandstone 30/06/2041
Wattscliffe* SK 222 621 Sandstone 21/02/2042
New Pilhough* SK 250 645 Sandstone 31/12/2023
Shire Hill SK 053 944 Sandstone 21/02/2042
61
Quarry name Grid Ref Material End Date
Wimberry Moss SK 965 765 Sandstone 21/02/2042
Burntwood Quarry* SK 267 666 Sandstone 17/12/2028
Once a Week* SK 157 681 Limestone 30/09/2043 Rutland
Woolfox SK 950 136 Limestone 09/06/2019
Greetham SK 931 146 Limestone 30/09/2020
Top Grange Quarry SP 980 055 Limestone IDO area: Ketton* 21/03/2042 Extension: 31/12/2026
Clipsham Quarry SK 969 150 Limestone 2028 Extension
Hooby Lane, Stretton* SK 936 164 Limestone 31/12/2043 *Site producing materials for non-aggregate purposes only
Inactive
A site is considered inactive where there are no substantial mineral operations being carried out during the survey year.
Quarry name Grid Ref Material
Derbyshire
Hayfield SK 300 869 Sandstone 2042
Bolehill SK 368 661 Sandstone 2042
Hindlow SK 960 678 Limestone 2042
Middle Peak SK 276 543 Limestone 2042
Hillhead SK 850 692 Limestone 2042
Bolsover Moor SK 500 712 Dolomite 2042
Elvaston SK 430 313 Sand and Gravel
Potlocks Farm SK 314 287 Sand and Gravel
Hardwick Hall SK 455 640 Building Stone 2042
62 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material
Hall Dale SK 280 635 Sandstone 2042 Leicestershire
Whitwick SK 448 159 Igneous 21/02/2042
Groby SK 526 820 Igneous 31/12/2038
Charnwood SK 485 179 Igneous 21/02/2042
Slip Inn SP 544 888 Sand and Gravel 30/09/2019 Lincolnshire
Heydour (building only) SK 992 410 Limestone 21\02\2042
Ropsley TF 000 363 Limestone 10\02\2052
King Street (West TF 113 100 Sand and Gravel 24\10\2057 Deeping)
Red Barn, Castle Bytham SK 976 200 Sand & Gravel 25\09\2067
South Witham No 1 (Mick SK 915 189 Limestone 12\06\2062 George)
Castle SK 987 433 Limestone 10\12\2049
Tetford Hill TF 329 759 Chalk N\A Northamptonshire
Cowthick, Weldon SP 923 887 Limestone 21/03/2042 Landfill
2023
Earls Barton West SP 843 623 Sand & Gravel 21/03/2042
Park Lodge, Gretton SP 908 943 Ironstone & Overlying 17 years from Minerals date of commencement
Stone Pits SP 981 887 Limestone 45 years from date of (unimplemented) commencement
Wakerley SP 875 820 Ironstone & Overlying 21/03/2042 Minerals
Weekley Hall Wood SP 875 818 Ironstone & Overlying 21/03/2042 Minerals
63
Quarry name Grid Ref Material
Pitsford SP 923 887 Limestone 2022
Earls Barton Spinney SP861 619 Sand & Gravel 10 years from date of commencement
Collyweston Slate Mine TF 009 326 Limestone 2017 (unimplemented)
Stonehill TL 063 990 Limestone 13 years from date of commencement
Collyweston western E499411 N300900 Limestone 21/03/2042 extension (unimplemented) Nottinghamshire
Nether Langwith SK 543 695 Limestone/Dolomite 2017
Cromwell SK 805 625 Sand and Gravel 2026
Sturton Le Steeple SK 802 847 Sand and Gravel 2030
Yellowstone (Building SK 537 515 Limestone N/A IDO Stone)
Girton SK 821 676 Sand and Gravel 2026 Peak District NPA
Beelow SK 094 793 Limestone 21/02/2042
Stanton Moor # SK 246 634 Sandstone 20/02/2042 Rutland
Thistleton Quarry SK 900 170 Ironstone (Limestone) 31/12/2042 # Site currently in suspension
Dormant
A site is considered dormant if no minerals development can lawfully be carried out until an application to update the planning conditions has been made to the mineral planning authority and finally determined under the provisions of the Environment Act 1995 or, in the case of Old Mining Permissions, under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991
64 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material Permitted End Date
Derbyshire
Intake and Redhill SK 270 551 Limestone
Hopton SK 265 353 Limestone
Mugginton SK 289 435 Sand and Gravel Leicestershire
Sapcote and Granitethorpe SP 497 935 Igneous 21/02/2042
Goadby Marwood/Branston SK 790 280 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Holwell SK 745 238 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Tilton SK 758 061 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Harston SK 840 310 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Buckminster/Sewstern SK 900 225 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Eaton/Stathern SK 788 296 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Saltby/Sproxton SK 865 255 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Stathern/Knipton SK 800 313 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Somerby SK 778 100 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Eaton SK 788 288 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042 Lincolnshire
Willow/Thunderbolt SK 998 182 Limestone 21\02\2042
Digby (Scopwick) TF 053 572 Limestone 21\02\2042
Grange Farm (Little Bytham) TF 012 176 Limestone 21\02\2042
Kirkstead TF 194 602 Sand and Gravel 29\09\2041
Biscathorpe TF 222 845 Sand and Gravel 21/02/2042
Sudbrook SK 970 443 Sand and Gravel 21\02\2042
North Kelsey Sandpit TA 042 011 Sand and Gravel 21\02\2042
Burton SK 948 738 Sand and Gravel 21\02\2042
Welton le Wold TF 278 883 Sand and Gravel 21\02\2042
65
Quarry name Grid Ref Material Permitted End Date
Colsterworth/Gunby/Stainby SK 915 235 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Buckminster SK 905 225 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Thistleton/South Witham SK 925 189 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Denton Harlaxton SK 885 310 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Colsterworth SK 905 240 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Burton Coggles SK 960 257 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Nettleton Mine (underground) TF 120 980 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Nettleton Mine (opencast) TF 120 980 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Colsterworth/Skillington SK 899 250 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Colsterworth (North) SK 918 250 Ironstone 21\02\2042
Fir Hill TF 361 829 Chalk 21\02\2042
Muckton Bottoms TF 364 823 Chalk 21\02\2042
Saturday Pits TF 339 252 Chalk 21\02\2042
North Ormsby TF 288 934 Chalk 21\02\2042
Belchford TF 306 766 Chalk 21\02\2042 Northamptonshire
Earls Barton SP 859 640 & SP Silica Sand, Clay & 21/02/2042 859 648 Ganister
Land at Boughton-Pitsford- SP 550 684 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Moulton Minerals
Desborough/Rushton SP 825 840 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Great Oakley SP 875 855 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Brookfield Cottage, Gretton SP 917 936 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Glendon South, Kettering SP 875 807 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Harringworth Sibleys, SP 925 963 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042
66 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Quarry name Grid Ref Material Permitted End Date
Harringworth Minerals
Rothwell SP 805 815 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Westfield Lodge, SP 925 705 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Wellingborough Minerals
Finedon SP 917 707 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Burton Latimer, Finedon, SP 930 728 Ironstone & 21/02/2042 Irthlingborough, Little Underground Mining Addington
Blisworth SP 720 520 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals Limestone
Nassington TL 040 980 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals Yarwell
Rushton Grange, Rushton SP 825 833 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Desborough East Lodge. SP 813 847 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Pipewell, West Lodge Minerals
Twywell SP 952 788 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Irchester SP 915 645 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Byfield SP 515 545 Marlestone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals Ironstone & Overlying Minerals
Charwelton SP 515 565 Marlestone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals Ironstone & Overlying Minerals
Cranford SP 930 790 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Cranford Extension SP 923 760 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Loddington/Orton SP 805 790 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
67
Quarry name Grid Ref Material Permitted End Date
Newton Grange, Geddington SP 883 838 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Burton Latimer SP 896 758 Ganister, Ironstone 21/02/2042 Overlying Minerals &
Desborough, Harrington Road SP 789 829 Iron Ore 21/02/2042 Pit
Desborough, Factory Pit SP 792 830 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Brookfield (Plantation) SP 900 920 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals
Harringworth Lodge (Martins) SP 932 953 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Harringworth Minerals
Lamport SP 760 735 Ironstone & Overlying 21/02/2042 Minerals Peak District NPA
Hillhead SK 083 688 Limestone 21/02/2042 Rutland
Cottesmore/Exton SK 910 120 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Pilton SK 920 025 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Thistleton (underground) SK 930 180 Ironstone (Limestone) 21/02/2042
Big Pitts, Clipsham SK 968 145 Limestone 21/02/2042
68 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 7: Monitoring of Planning Applications
Planning Applications for primary aggregate extraction determined 1 January to 31 December 2016
Site Name Application Address Detail Status Number Derbyshire
CM9/0715/63 Castleway, Extension. 2.07mt. Willington Granted 07/09/16 Willington Sand & Gravel Peak District
Ballidon xxx xxx 14,000 tonnes. Granted 19.07.16 Limestone Leicestershire
2016/0426/06 0.47 hectare extension to the extraction area at Brooksby Quarry, Granted September Brooksby Quarry yielding 2016 approximately 61,000 tonnes of sand and gravel
Extension of the limit of extraction within 2016/0020/04 Cliffe Hill Quarry xxx Old Cliffe Hill Quarry Granted July 2016 to release 2.6 million tonnes of stone. Lincolnshire
Eagle Road, Extension – Approved subject Lincoln, N23/27/64/0385/ 2,200,000 Sand to pending legal Whisby Quarry 14 LN6 9BT and Gravel agreement
Tattershall Road
Kirkby-on-Bain Extension (S73)– Granted Woodhall Spa 70,000 Sand and 06/06/2016 Lincolnshire Gravel Kirkby on Bain ES176/189/0443 Quarry /16 LN10 6YN
Tattershall Road Extension – Approved subject Kirkby-on-Bain 3,500,000 Sand to pending legal Kirkby on Bain Quarry ES176\0840\15 Woodhall Spa and Gravel agreement
69
Site Name Application Address Detail Status Number Lincolnshire LN10 6YN
Application Site Refused New – 5,900,000 Gorse Lane 03/1/2016 Appeal Limestone pending Gorse lane Denton S26/1611/15 Grantham
Dunston Quarry B1188 Lincoln Extension 500,000 Refused 05/12/16 N26/1212/16 Road, Dunstan Limestone
Ermine Allotment L/0768/16 Riseholme Road, Extension ( Site Lincoln, Exploratory) Granted Lincolnshire Limestone 20/09/2016 (blockonly) Northamptonshire
14/00035/MINFU Peterborough Extension to Collyweston Road, Duddington, Granted L 2,231,985 tonnes Quarry Western Northamptonshire, 26/07/2016 Extension PE9 3QA Limestone Nottinghamshire
Misson Sand Bawtry Road, 500,000 tonnes Granted Quarry 1/15/01574/CDM Misson, Nr 09/03/2016 [465200 3392000] Doncaster. *Please note these sites are resubmissions of previously approved tonnage.
70 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Planning Applications for primary aggregate extraction pending as at 31 December 2016
Authority/Council Application Address Detail Status Number Derbyshire
CM9/1215/122 Twyford Road Extension. 2.5mt. Swarkestone Awaiting decision Barrow on Trent Sand & Gravel
Ashwood Dale CM1/0315/159 Bakewell Road, Extension. 5mt Awaiting decision Buxton Limestone
Whitwell CM5/0416/4 Southfield Lane Extensions. 4.7mt of Awaiting decision Whitwell dolomite inc 1.54mt of aggregate Peak District
New Pilhough xxx xxx Extension. 89,330 Awaiting additional Tonnes. Gritstone information
Dale View* xxx xxx Renewal. Awaiting signing 1,009,728 tonnes. of s106 Gritstone Agreement
Topley Pike xxx xxx Extension. 390,000 Awaiting signing tonnes. Limestone of s106 Agreement
Chinley Moor* Renewal 3,500 Awaiting Decision Tonnes. Gritstone Lincolnshire
Eagle Road, Extension – Approved subject Lincoln, N23/27/64/0385/ 2,200,000 Sand to pending legal Whisby Quarry 14 LN6 9BT and Gravel agreement
Mill Lane South Witham Extension – Grantham 2,650,000 Awaiting Decision Lincolnshire Limestone South Witham Quarry (West) S68/1560/16 NG33 5QL
Tattershall Road Kirkby-on-Bain Extension – Approved subject 3,500,000 Sand to pending legal Woodhall Spa Kirkby on Bain and Gravel agreement Quarry ES176\0840\15 Lincolnshire
71
Authority/Council Application Address Detail Status Number LN10 6YN Northamptonshire
14/00035/MINFU Peterborough Extension to Collyweston Road, Duddington, Granted L 2,231,985 tonnes Quarry Western Northamptonshire, 26/07/2016 Extension PE9 3QA Limestone Nottinghamshire
Collingham, Langford Quarry 3,600,000 tonnes Pending Newark on [481686 360608] 3/16/01689/CMA Trent East Leake Quarry, Rempstone 1,780,000 Pending . [456273 8/14/01537/CMA Road, East 324979] Leake
72 East Midlands AWP Annual Monitoring Report 2016
Appendix 8: The East Midlands Local Government Areas
73
Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, Salford, M27 5AS Registration Number: 5292634. Registered in England
Commercial in Confidence
Urban Vision is a joint venture with Salford City Council 74